JUDGMENT

The Plaintiffs by Summons-in-Chambers (enclosure (46)) applied for the following preliminary questions of law (hereinafter referred to as "the said questions") to be tried before the trial of the Writ under Order 33, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court l980.

(i) Menurut pengakuan nyata Defendan di dalam pembelaan dan Tuntutan-Balas Terpinda Defendan bahawa Defendan sedar tentang Wasiat bertarikh 20 haribulan Jun 1972 pada semua masa material, Defendan tiada locus dan asas untuk memohon dan diberikan Surat Kuasa Mentadbir dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur Petisyen No. S3-31-413-95 dan "ex-facie" dan tuntutan Plentif-Plentif untuk pembatalan Surat Kuasa Mentadbir yang tersebut di atas di dalam Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Semula haruslah dibenarkan dan Penghakiman dimasukkan atas tuntutan Plentif dengan kos;

[2] (ii) Merujuk kepada pengakuan nyata Defendan di dalam Pembelaan dan Tuntutan-Balas Terpindanya mengenai kewujudan Wasiat bertarikh 20 haribulan Jun 1972 yang dirujuk di atas dan tuntutan-tuntutan yang dipohon oleh Defendan di dalam tuntutan-balasnya yang mengesahkan Wasiat di mana Defendan adalah bukan seorang wasi mahu pun waris, Defendan tidak mempunyai locus standi untuk mempertahankan tuntutan-balas dan tuntutan-balas Defendan seharusnya ditolak dengan kos.

2. On 24.7.97, I ordered the said question to be so tried. On 29.7.97, I directed the proceedings in respect of the said questions to proceed by way of written submissions due to the shortage of time.

3. Briefly, the Writ is concerned with the tussle over two pieces of landed property of the estate of Rasamah a/p J.V. Thambipillai @ Rasammah Kulasingam between the Plaintiffs, two of the deceased's children, who claimed to be the executors and beneficiaries under the last will of the deceased dated 8.8.1994 and the Defendant, the husband of the deceased who asserted his right as the administrator of the deceased's estate by virtue of the Letters of Administration granted to him on 1.11.95 (Petition No. S3-31-413-95). There are also three other wills alleged to have been made by the deceased in repect of the said property dated 20.6.l972, [3] 27.5.1992 and 9.8.1993. Now all the wills are being disputed by the Defendant in this suit except the 1972 will which appears not be challenged by the Defendant originally.

Under the 1972 will two of the four children of the deceased are the executors and the children (Jane, Ruth, Esther and Rosalind) are the beneficiances. On 20.5.l997, a grant of probate was made to the Plaintiffs based on the 1994 will (Petition No. S1-32-16-97).

4. In the Pernyataan Tuntutan Terpinda Semula, the Plaintiffs only apply for the Letters of Administration granted to the Defendant to be revoked with costs.

5. The Plaintiffs' Counsel contends that as the Letters of Administration granted to the Defendant was based on the statements in the Petition that the deceased left no will and whereas the existence of the four wills has been demonstrated though the last three wills being disputed, the Letters of Administration ought to be revoked. And also, the Letters of Administration should be revoked because the grant of probate dated 20.5.l997 made to the Plaintiffs was based on the 1994 will. F'urther, the fact that the Defendant has prayed for a declaration that the 1972 will is valid and has stated that Ruth and Esther are the joint beneficiaries under the said will (paragraph 25 (d), 25 (b), 8, 15 and 15A, Pernyataan Pembelaan dan Tuntutan Balas Defendan Terpinda) is really an[4] admission by the Defendant as to the existence of a will and other executors and beneficiaries, and hence, the Letters of Administration ought to be revoked. As the Defendant is not an executor or a beneficiary under the 1972 will he has no locus standi or capacity to apply for the said declaration, to dispute the validity of the 1992, and 1994 wills, to raise the entitlement of and to claim on behalf of Ruth and Esther and to proceed with his counterclaim. Therefore, t