Is Tiu Pang Hua (Pang Hua) the son of Tui Jock Soon (deceased) and Ang Mek Chong, the defendant? The plaintiff says Pang Hua is not. The plaintiff says Pang Hua is instead the grandson of the defendant and the step-grandson of the deceased. The defendant maintains that Pang Hua is the son of the deceased and herself

The reason for the dispute? Four pieces of land, one of which has a house on it and all these properties, the plaintiff alleges, comprise the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff claims she is a niece of the deceased and that she and one other niece and a nephew of the deceased together with the defendant are entitled as beneficiaries to the estate. If indeed Pang Hua is the lawful son of the deceased, then of course the plaintiff, the other niece and the nephew of the deceased would not be entitled to the estate of the deceased who obviously died intestate.

The plaintiff seeks a declaration that Pang Hua was not the lawful son of the deceased and that therefore he is not entitled to the deceaseds estate and for an order that the estate be distributed among herself, the other niece of the deceased and the defendant.

It is not disputed that the deceased had two wives, the defendant being the second wife, and that the first wife did not bear him any child. It is also not disputed that before her marriage to the deceased the defendant was a widow and she had three children from her previous marriage. Nor is it disputed that Pang Hua was born on 19 May 1968.

The plaintiffs case is based on assertions of herself and four other witnesses that Pang Hua is not the son of the deceased and assertions of herself and one witness that Pang Hua is the son of Owi Thien Tiu (DW3) and Ang Soo Hun (DW4). It was also argued that an inference can be drawn from the evidence that the deceased was impotent and sterile and therefore he could not have fathered Pang Hua. Further, it is argued that the defendant could not have given birth to Pang Hua in 1968 because she was then past child-bearing age. On the other hand the evidence of the defendant was that she gave birth to Pang Hua and that the deceased was the boys father. The birth certificate in respect of Pang Hua shows particulars that the deceased was the father and the defendant is the mother of Pang Hua. And Owi Thien Tiu (DW3) and Ang Soo Hun (DW4) categorically stated that Pang Hua is not their son.

According to the evidence of the plaintiff, her eldest sisters daughter Ang Soo Hun (DW4) married Owi Thien Tiu (DW3), the son of the defendant. She asserted that Pang Hua was their son and that the deceased adopted this boy as his son because he himself had no lawful issue. In her examination-in-chief she did not give the basis for her assertion that Pang Hua was not the deceaseds son save to say that the uncle did not have an issue because I know this myself -- he was my uncle and I would go to his house. As regards the other assertion that Pang Hua was the son of DW4 and DW3, she did not give the basis for her view. She, however, called four witnesses to give evidence in support of her assertions.

Three of her witnesses, PW3, PW4 and PW5, were supposed to have known the deceased. They alleged that they were from the same area as the deceased. PW3, Som bte Daly, said that she used to go to the deceaseds house for betel nut leaves and tobacco. She said the deceased and the defendant were married for 20 years but did not have any children from the marriage. I cannot see how by the mere fact of her going to the deceaseds house for betel nuts and tobacco she therefore knew that the deceased and the defendant had no child from the marriage.

PW2, Mohd Nawi, said the defendant and the deceased were married for 30 years and had no children from that marriage. This witness too gave no basis for this knowledge. PW5, Abdullah bin Mat, said that the deceased was a close friend of his and that he used to go to the deceaseds house. He said the deceased marri