Back
Next 
2013 MarsdenLR 2084
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
MARAPPAN MUTHUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
R SIVAM RAMASAMY – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: W-02-2412-10-2012]
Important Points
The party asserting a right must prove the facts supporting their claim; burden of proof does not shift until the initial burden is met.
Subject
Property Law - Trusts and Estates
Act Referred
Evidence Act 1950: S.101, S.103
Headnote
(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 and 103 - Where the party asserting a fact must prove that fact exists; the burden does not shift to the other party unless the plaintiff discharges their burden. (Paras 11, 12, 34)
(B) Validity of documents - Genuineness of documents must be proven by the party making claims based on them; failure to establish authenticity leads to dismissal of claims. The trial court misallocated the burden of proof. (Paras 9, 10, 35)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, as a trustee, had issues with the validity of various sale agreements and assignments related to shared ownership of a property. The High Court found in favor of the respondent, which the appellant contested.
Findings of Court:
The learned judge's reliance on disputed documents was erroneous because the respondent failed to provide proof for their genuineness. The court emphasized the necessity of the plaintiff establishing their claims on the balance of probabilities.
Issues: The court needed to determine the genuineness and validity of contested documents that were central to the respondent's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant established that the trial court improperly required the appellant to prove fraud instead of the plaintiff proving the genuineness of their claims.
Result: Appeal allowed; counterclaim of the appellant granted.
(B) Validity of documents - Genuineness of documents must be proven by the party making claims based on them; failure to establish authenticity leads to dismissal of claims. The trial court misallocated the burden of proof. (Paras 9, 10, 35)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, as a trustee, had issues with the validity of various sale agreements and assignments related to shared ownership of a property. The High Court found in favor of the respondent, which the appellant contested.
Findings of Court:
The learned judge's reliance on disputed documents was erroneous because the respondent failed to provide proof for their genuineness. The court emphasized the necessity of the plaintiff establishing their claims on the balance of probabilities.
Issues: The court needed to determine the genuineness and validity of contested documents that were central to the respondent's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant established that the trial court improperly required the appellant to prove fraud instead of the plaintiff proving the genuineness of their claims.
Result: Appeal allowed; counterclaim of the appellant granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1) |
[1] This is an appeal by Marappan a/l Muthusamy (the appellant) against the decision of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur dated 25 September 2012. On 24 June 2013 we heard the appeal which we allowed. We now set out the reasons for our decision.
