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

2023 MarsdenLR 1642

HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SAVATERY JAYARAMAN – Appellant
Versus
TEOH YING RIN – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: BA-22NCVC-167-06/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Liew Teck Huat,Ong Kang Nyong ,Respondent Advocate: Joshua Kuan Kai Wen,Hew Li Sien

The propounder of a will bears the burden to prove testamentary capacity and dispel suspicious circumstances; failure to do so renders the will invalid.

Headnote:(A) Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) - Sections 3, 4, and 5 - Validity of will - Plaintiff challenges the 2019 Will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, while Defendant propounds the Will - Court finds suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution were not dispelled by Defendant - Court declares the 2019 Will null and void and that Testator died intestate. (Paras 1, 4, 112, 114, 115)

(B) Burden of Proof - Propounder of a will must prove testamentary capacity and dispel any suspicious circumstances; failure to do so results in the will being declared invalid. (Paras 9, 12, 106)

(C) Judicial Conscience - The Court must be satisfied that a will expresses the true wishes of the Testator before allowing it to be probated. (Paras 100, 106)

Table of Content
1. challenge to the validity of the will. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. legal framework governing wills. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. burden of proof in will challenges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. suspicious circumstances in will execution. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. court's scrutiny in probate actions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. extraneous vitiating factors in will. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
7. court's role in assessing evidence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
8. failure to follow legal principles. (Para 32 , 33 , 34)
9. background of the testator and the will. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
10. details of the testator's assets. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
11. contents of the 2019 will. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
12. testator's medical condition and capacity. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
13. preparation and legal advice for the will. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
14. defendant's testimony on previous wills. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72)
15. execution process of the 2019 will. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85)
16. court's findings on suspicious circumstances. (Para 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107)
17. conclusion on the will's validity. (Para 110 , 111 , 112)
Faizah Jamaludin J:

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff filed this action challenging the validity of the will dated 29 April 2019 (the "2019 Will") executed by her late husband Nantha Kumaran a/l Saravanmuthu (the "Testator"). She seeks a declaration that the 2019 Will is null, void and of no effect and that it be set aside. She also seeks a declaration that the Testator had died intestate. The Testator was diagnosed with stage-3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in January 2018. He succumbed to the cancer and passed away on 7 June 2019.

[2] The Defendant is the propounder of the 2019 Will. She had filed an ex-parte Originating Summons No BA-32NCVC-580-07/2019 ("OS 580") on 19 July 2023 seeking an Order of Court for the 2019 Will to be probated and a Grant of Probate issued. The Plaintiff had filed a caveat against the propounding of the Will. The High Court in OS 580 directed under O 78 r 38 of the Rules of Court 2012 that the matter proceeds as a contentious probate action begun by writ under O 72 of the Rules.

[3] The Plaintiff challenged the validity of the 2019 Will on the grounds that the Testator lacked testamentary capacity and suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the 2019 Will. She also alleged that the Defendant had exerted undue influence on the Testator in the preparation and execution of the 2019 Will. She did not, however, challenge the fact that the Testator had executed the 2019 and that his signature was attested by two witnesses.

[4] After full trial, upon considering all the documentary evidence produced and oral testimonies of witnesses, I found that the Defendant had failed to dispel or remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of the 2019 Will. For this reason, this Court allowed the Plaintiff's application and declared that the 2019 Will to be null, void and of no effect and that it be set aside. I also declared that the Testator had died intestate. The full reasons for my decision are set out in this Judgment.

B. The Law

[5] Wills made by non-Muslim persons in Peninsular Malaysia are governed by the Wills Act 1959 (Act 346) (the "Wills Act"). The Testator was a non-Muslim and made the 2019 Will in Selangor.

[6] Pursuant to ss 3 and 4 of the Wills Act, except as provided under the Act, every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may devise, bequeath or dispose of his property by his will. Sections 3 and read:

3. Property Disposal by will

Except as hereinafter provided, every person of sound mind may devise, bequeath or dispose of by his will, executed in manner hereinafter required, all property which he owns or to which he is entitled either at law or in equity at the time of his death notwithstanding that he may have become entitled to the same subsequently to the execution of the wi

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 Back to top