The parties to this suit belong to one family and their dispute is over the ownership of a piece of land measuring five acres in area, where they all live in four houses that have been erected on it.

Prior to 2 May 1984, the plaintiff was the registered proprietress of the land but after that date, her three sons, the defendants, became its registered owners. It is this transfer that the plaintiff now alleges as being null and void as she had never consented to it in the first place and that her thumb-print appearing on the transfer form was obtained fraudulently. To that end, she also relies on the plea of non est factum and in this she claims the re-transfer of the land into her name.

The plaintiff has nine children, six daughters and three sons who are the defendants. From AB2, a letter dated 20 June 1975 written by her six daughters, it is very clear that the dispute over the land had been long outstanding between the female and male members of the family. The letter addressed to the Datok Penghulu, Jeram, and copied to the Ketua Kampong Sungai Buloh and the Member of Parliament of the area, sought the assistance of the Datok Penghulu to settle the dispute but nothing appears to have come out of it.

It is not disputed that in March 1984, a meeting was held at the home of the first defendant attended by all the members of the family and their respective spouses but different versions were given as to the purpose of the meeting.

The plaintiff testified that she had summoned the meeting so as to resolve the question of distributing the property between her children and in this respect her evidence is supported by her grandson, PW4, who testified that on the instructions of his grandmother, he had summoned all his uncles and aunts to the meeting. The defendants, however, maintain that the meeting never discussed the distribution of the property and that the only matter discussed was the settlement of a quarrel over the assault of PW4 by his uncle, the first defendant. If that was so, no reason was given by the first defendant as to the cause of the assault and the third defendant even testified that he was not even aware that such a meeting had taken place.

The only independent witness to this meeting, PW3, who had been specially summoned from Shah Alam, however, testified that 20 people attended the meeting and before it commenced he had ascertained the purpose of the meeting from the plaintiff which was to discuss the division of the property between her sons and daughters.

Bearing in mind the number of people attending the meeting and the ill feelings between the children of the plaintiff, I have no doubt that the plaintiff had called the meeting specially to discuss the distribution of the property. It seems highly inconceivable that such a large number of people should meet specially to settle a quarrel over an assault for which no reason or circumstances were given as to why or how it had taken place. The meeting must have been to discuss something more urgent or pressing and this could only be the distribution of the land over which so much ill feelings had surfaced since 1975. Moreover, there is PW1's undisputed evidence that the assault on her son, PW4, only happened after the meeting and not before.

At this meeting, the plaintiff proposed dividing the land into four shares, one each to the three defendants, and PW1, her eldest daughter, who is the widow of her brother and who had contributed to the purchase of the property. The defendants objected to PW1 getting a share and annoyed by their brothers' objection, the other five daughters of the plaintiff also demanded a share of the property. To break the impasse, the plaintiff decided that she would divide the property into ten shares, one each to her nine children and the tenth share to her grandson, PW4. This roused the anger of the defendants and the meeting nearly ended in blows when the third defendant attempted to hit the plaintiff with a cha