Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
DHAMODARAN MUNUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
KAVARIAMAL MUNUSAMY & ANOR (ENCL 146) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. non est factum has limited applicability (Para 1) |
| 2. background context of parties involved and the covenant (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments presented by plaintiff and defendants (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. analysis of non est factum defence and reasons for its rejection (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. evaluation of proof of financial contributions to the purchase (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. plaintiff's claim not defeated by limitation or laches (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. adverse inference due to failure to call a relevant witness (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. credibility issues with defendants as witnesses (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. final findings and orders of the court (Para 40) |
Introduction
[1] This court begins by observing that the defence of non est factum, while this doctrine existed at least as early as 1584, now no longer enjoys the same credibility in modern age legal disputes. This doctrine is of limited application mainly because of the uphill task of proving one. It is reserved for truly exceptional circumstances, such as where a party is illiterate, blind, or under a fundamental misapprehension as to the nature of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
