Back
2020 MarsdenLR 1735
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SHARMILA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
RAMANI PERIASAMY PILLAI – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-31NCVC-1287-08/2018]
An application to remove an estate administrator must clearly state grounds of non-compliance, with the majority beneficiaries' wishes prevailing in administration disputes.
Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 – Technical non-compliance and merits – An application to remove an administrator must state grounds clearly as per Order 32, Rules of 2012 – Failure to comply with procedural requirements deemed fatal for application. (Paras 12, 16, 21, 39)
(B) Majority interest in administration – The court will recognize the wishes of the majority of beneficiaries in deciding the appointment of administrators. In this case, Sharmila was supported by the majority; hence, the court rejected Ramani's application to be the sole administrator. (Paras 36, 38, 48)
Facts of the case: The dispute arose after Krishnavani died intestate. Sharmila was appointed as the Administrator, later contested by Ramani, who alleged misconduct. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court: The application was dismissed on technical grounds for failure to state the grounds clearly and on the basis that Ramani was deemed unfit to administer the estate according to the wishes of the majority of beneficiaries. (Paras 49, 50)
Issues: The core issues involved the procedural compliance of the application for removal and whether an administrator can remove another administrator. (Paras 21, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural compliance is critical, and the wishes of the majority beneficiaries dictate the appointment of administration in an estate case. (Paras 37, 39)
Result: Application dismissed with costs of RM3,000.00.
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] One, Krishnavani a/p Mookapillai died on 27 November 2017 intestate. Vide a Grant of Letters of Administration dated 29 October 2018, the eldest daughter, Sharmila Pillai ("Pemohon") was appointed as the Administrator and later the deceased's only son, Ramani a/l P Pillai ("Pemohon Bersama") was appointed the CoAdministrator of her estate.
[2] Vide Enclosure (26), Ramani had made an application to this Court to remove Sharmila as the Administrator so that he remains as the Sole Administrator.
[3] After perusing all the cause papers and hearing submission from both parties, this Court had dismissed the application with costs of RM3,000.00.
[4] Dissatisfied, Ramani had filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
[5] Herewith are the grounds of judgment for the decision.
Background Fact
[6] Krishnavani a/p Mookapillai (the Deceased) died intestate on 27 November 2017. She left behind Beneficiaries ie her husband, Periasami Chidambaram Pillai; daughter, Sharmila Pillai ("Pemohon"/Adminstrator); son, Ramani a/l P Pillai, ("Pemohon Bersama"/Co-Administrator) and Shobana Periyasamy, another daughter. Vide Enclosure (1), Sharmila Pillai ("Pemohon") was appointed as the Sole Administrator pursuant to the Grant of Letters of Administration dated 29 October 2018. Later Ramani a/l Periasamy Pillai ("Pemohon Bersama") was appointed as a Co-Administrator.
[7] The relationship between Sharmila (Pemohon) who has strong support from the father and the other sister, with Ramani ("Pemohon Bersama") was not very cordial, but strained after the Grant of Letters of Administration was obtained. Ramani ("Pemohon Bersama") alleged that Sharmila Pillai ("Pemohon") had failed to discharge her duties as Administrator honestly and lawfully (will discuss later). Disputes between the Beneficiaries flares up because now disputing over the assets of the deceased, and Ramani is to borrow the words of Sharmila Pillai's Counsel, "are tearing at each others' flesh and blood over the estate of the deceased".
[8] Hence vide Enclosure (26), Ramani a/l Periasamy Pillai ("Ramani"/Pemohon Bersama) had filed a Notice of Application for an Order of Court for the following:
(a) to remove Sharmila Pillai (henceforth referred to as "Sharmila") as an Administrator of the estate of the deceased, the late Krishnavani a/p A Mookapillai;
(b) an Order that the jewelleries taken from the locker at CIMB Bank at Pelabuhan Klang on 27 December 2018 be returned to Ramani within seven (7) days of the Order;
[9] This Court had refused the application and hence the appeal.
C. Analysis And Finding Of This Court
[10] For this purpose, the Court had referred to the following cause papers:
(a) Notice of application of Ramani (encl 26) dated 10 May 2019;
(b) Affidavit in Support affirmed by Ramani on 8 May 2019 (henceforth referred to as "the Affidavit in Support");
(c) Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Sharmila on 16 July 2019 (henceforth referred to as "Sharmila's 1st affidavit");
(d) Affidavit in Reply No 2 affirmed by Ramani on 19 August 2019 (henceforth referred to as "Ramani's Affidavit in Reply-2");
(e) Affidavit in Reply (2) affirmed by Sharmila on 10 September 2019 (henceforth referred to as "Sharmila's Affidavit in Reply-2");
(f) Affidavit affirmed by Shobana Periyasamy affirmed on 10 September 2019 (henceforth referred to as "Shobana's affidavit");
(g) Affidavit affirmed by the father, Periasami Chidambaram Pillai on 10 September 2019 (henceforth referred to a "Periasami's affidavit");
(h) Affidavit in Reply (no 3) affirmed by Ramani (henceforth referred to as "Ramani's Affidavit in Reply-3");
(i) Submissions by both parties.
[11] It is germane for this Court to look into Ramani's complaint through his Affidavit averred on 8 May 2019. The extracts of his affidavit at Exhibit "R1" are reproduced below:
"1. Saya ialah Plaintif yang dinamakan di atas dan mendeposkan Afidavit ini dari fakta-fakta dan document dalam pengetahuan peribadi saya kecuali di mana dinyatakan
