Back
2024 MarsdenLR 2191
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
GNASEGARAN PALANI & ORS – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH @ MUTHU NALLAYAN – Respondent
[Civil No: WA-22NCvC-522-09/2023]
The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of ownership claims previously adjudicated, and parties must adhere to their sworn testimony in court proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Section 41 - Res Judicata - Ownership of property - Plaintiffs sought to declare the will of the Deceased null and void while contending ownership of property shares - Court affirmed that the issue of ownership had been adjudicated multiple times, thus applying the doctrine of res judicata - Plaintiffs lacked locus standi to challenge the will as they were not beneficiaries of the estate - The suit was struck out for being time-barred and for abuse of court process. (Paras 4, 10, 20, 26)
(B) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 115 - Parties must be bound by their own evidence - Plaintiffs previously testified that they sold their shares in the property to the Deceased, which they could not now contradict. (Paras 16, 19)
(C) Fraud - No particulars of fraud were provided in the Plaintiffs' statement of claim, rendering the suit untenable. (Paras 23)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs claimed that the Deceased's will was invalid and sought various declarations regarding property ownership, despite previous court decisions affirming the Deceased's ownership of 5/6 share in the property. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the ownership of the property had been conclusively decided in prior cases, and the Plaintiffs had no standing to contest the will or the Grant of Probate. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Deceased's will, the ownership of property shares, and the Plaintiffs' standing to bring the suit. (Paras 1, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the doctrine of res judicata applied, preventing re-litigation of the ownership issue, and emphasized that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by time and lacked proper legal standing. (Paras 10, 11, 20)
Result: The Plaintiffs' suit was struck out, and costs of RM15,000.00 were awarded to the Defendant. (Paras 26)
JUDGMENT
Enc 11 - Defendant's Application To Strike Out The Plaintiffs' Claim
[1] The Plaintiffs filed this suit to seek orders of grave nature from this Court . They sought a declaration that the will of one Nallayan a/l Ramasamy, their friend who was the father of the Defendant, (the Deceased) is null and void. Consequent to that, they sought the following orders amongst others, which this Court listed in a more comprehensible fashion as follows:
(a) The Deceased did not have locus standi and the right to will 5/6 of the shop lot under the title PN49472 Lot 21604, Mukim Setapak, Kuala Lumpur (the property);
(b) The sale and purchase agreement dated 13 March 1996 between the Deceased and the Plaintiffs (the agreement) that documented the Plaintiffs' sale of their respective 1/6 share in the property to the Deceased was void, unenforceable, and had lapsed in 1996;
(c) The Deceased only held 1/6 of the property;
(d) The Plaintiffs respectively hold 1/6 of the property;
(e) The list of assets and liabilities of the Deceased's estate submitted by the Defendant in Suit WA-32NCvC-856-05/2017 (the Grant of Probate proceedings) was not in order and void, misleading which the Plaintiffs are still contesting;
(f) The Grant of Probate accorded to the Defendant on 21 June 2017 (the Grant of Probate) be cancelled with immediate effect;
(g) In the interim that the Defendant is suspended and prevented from utilising the Grant of Probate in any dealings until the disposal of this suit;
(h) In the interim that the Defendant is prevented from initiating any other legal proceedings in relation to the property until the disposal of this suit;
(i) In the interim that the Defendant is prevented from enforcing all the terms of the Court order of 14 June 2021 that the Court had granted in his favour in Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-585- 09/2018 (Suit 585) against the Plaintiffs until the final disposal of this suit;
(j) That the Plaintiffs are allowed the liberty to refer to documents, exhibits in previous Court proceedings pertaining to the property:
(i) High Court Case No: S2-22-948-2008 (R Sivam's Suit 948);
(ii) Court of Appeal No: W-02-2412-10/2012 (Marappan's Appeal 2412);
(iii) The Grant of Probate proceedings;
(iv) Suit 585;
(v) Court of Appeal No: W-02(NCvC)(W)-1326-07/2021 (Marappan's Appeal 1326).
(k) That the Plaintiffs are given the liberty to invite the attention of the Court of Appeal in Appeal 1326 to Enc 13 (the Citation Application) and the Plaintiffs' statement of claim in this suit as additional evidence under s 7 Rules of the of Appeal 1994 and s 69 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964;
(l) That the Plaintiffs and other beneficiaries of the property be given the liberty to sell the property at the current market value and proceeds divided amongst them after the deduction of the costs and expenses;
(m) In the interim that the Defendant surrender the original Grant of Probate to Court ;
(n) That the Defendant is prevented from referring to the oral or written deposition of Marappan a/l Muthusamy (Marappan) against the Plainitff's;
(o) General damages.
[2] Clearly, the dispute centres around ownership of shares in the property. Premised on the previous decisions by the courts, the Defendant was set in his position that the Deceased rightfully owned 5/6 share in the property, which he had willed to the Defendant. This was affirmed by the Grant of Probate proceedings and the order by the High Court to issue the Defendant the Grant of Probate. The Defendant contended the Plaintiffs had sold their shares to the Deceased on 13 March 1996 vide the agreement. The Defendant further alleged the Plaintiffs' claim is time-barred and amounted to re-litigation of issues already decided in previous suits. This Court was implored to hold that this suit is a double claim pointing out to another suit filed by the Plaintiffs against Marappan vide WA-22NCvC-329-05/2021 (Suit 329) which is scheduled for trial in December 2024. The Defend
