SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 MarsdenLR 3100

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
TOB WENG KEONG – Appellant
Versus
TOB CHEE HOONG – Respondent


Table of Content
1. suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution. (Para 34)
2. finding that suspicious circumstances were not dispelled. (Para 36)
3. final ruling on the validity of the will. (Para 37)
4. discussing the construction of the will. (Para 38 , 52)
(c) Witnesses To The Will

[18] On the suspicious circumstance of the choice of witnesses to the will it was Ashok the solicitor who prepared the will and PW4 who were the witnesses. It was not disputed Ashok is the family lawyer who still does work for Kin and Keong and that PW4 was a long time employee. In this regard there is no prohibition in the Wills Act 1959 that the both of them cannot witness the will. Section 9 only states that gifts to an attesting witness shall be void while s 9 provides a will is not invalidated by reason of incompetence of attesting witness. As to PW4 not understanding English and therefore not knowing the other pages were the same document she signed as witness, PW4 had stated the will was explained to her and to a question that without understanding English she can confirm this was the exact document that was explained to her she said "yes because I can recognize my signature" (NOP 6 Jul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top