The validity of a will depends on the testator's sound mind and proper execution per statutory requirements, regardless of claims of mental illness or allegations of forgery.

Preliminary

[1] This is not a murder trial - far from it. It is just a civil trial. While this is only a civil trial, attempted murder allegations have been raised. A neighbour who received millions of ringgit in property and cash bequeathed to him through another neighbour's will has been accused of committing a crime to obtain them. In this action, the plaintiff is the neighbour who inherited such assets. This other neighbour, who bequeathed these assets to the plaintiff, is the deceased/testator of the Will. Originally from India, he immigrated to Malaya in the 1950s. 23 December 2016 was the date of his death. The defendant is the brother of the deceased/testator and has made this accusation against the plaintiff. A citizen of India, he currently resides in Tamil Nadu. It is unfortunate that he is not the beneficiary of the impugned Will. In order to enforce his rights over the assets, he has now come to Malaysia.

[2] Regardless of how the plot plays out and before I get too far into it, here is a quote from Aristotle that I find intriguing and relevant to the issues at hand: "Friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies". This case will show that the way a friendship is formed can have a lasting influence on it even beyond the grave.

[3] This is an action by the plaintiff for the revocation and/or setting aside of the Grant of Letters of Administration dated 12 May 2017 which was issued to the defendant on 15 May 2017 on the estate of the deceased/testator, one Ganesan a/l Ramiah and following that, for a declaration that the deceased/testator's Will dated 7 March 2007 is valid and subsisting and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to probate. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant committed fraud or acted illegally because, despite knowing there was a Will, the defendant nevertheless sought and was granted the Grant of Letters of Administration by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

[4] On the other hand, the defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff requesting that the last Will of the deceased/testator dated 7 March 2007 be struck down and that the plaintiff must return all money taken from the deceased/testator's bank account to the defendant. The defendant alleges that the Will was created under suspicious circumstances.

Issues Before The Court

[5] These disputes have led to the parties formulating ten (10) issues for my consideration and decision during the trial for both the main action and the counterclaim.

[6] Based on my observations, the issues posed by the plaintiff and the defendant can be narrowed down to only two main issues that are sufficient to resolve the disputes between them. They are, as the defendant aptly proposed, as follows:

(a)Issue 1 - Whether the Last Will and Testament of Ganesan A/L Ramiah dated 7 March 2007 ("the Last Will of the Testator") is valid?

(b)Issue 2 - Whether Ganesan A/L Ramiah ("the testator") had the necessary testamentary capacity to dispose of his assets pursuant to the Last Will of the Testator dated 7 March 2007?

[7] Despite the above, it is natural for any sub-issues that are relevant and of importance to fall under these two (2) main issues.

[8] During the three-day trial, the plaintiff called six (6) witnesses, including himself as PW6. Only DW1, the defendant himself, testified for the defendant. This judgment will analyse and apply the relevant evidence derived from their testimonies.

Analysis And Court's Decision

Issue 1 & Issue 2

[9] Due to their inextricable interrelationshi