The Distribution Act 1958 prevails over prior agreements concerning estate distribution, ensuring statutory rights of beneficiaries are upheld.

JUDGMENT

Lau Bee Lan JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are two appeals before us which arose out of two High Court Suits which were ordered to be heard together on appeal. They are:

(i) Civil Appeal No P-02(NCVC)(W)-2641-12-2018 ('Appeal 2641') which stems from the High Court Suit No: PA-22NCVC-227-11-2017; and

(ii) Civil Appeal No P-02(NCVC)(A)-631-04-2019 ('Appeal 631') which stems from the High Court Originating Summons No: PA- 24- NCVC-690-08-2018.

[2] Appeals 2641 and Appeal 631 were heard before different judges who gave contrary decisions, hence the appeals.

[3] Appeal 2641 is an appeal brought by the appellant, Lim Soh Wah, the plaintiff, in the High Court against the decision of the learned High Court Judge dismissing the plaintiff's claim and the decision was thereby held in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents, Lim Boon Cheow and Lim Boon Lin, the 1st and 2nd defendants acting in their capacity as the administrators of the estate of Lim Theng Hoe (deceased) in the High Court.

[4] Appeal 631 is an appeal brought by the appellants,Lim Boon Cheow and Lim Boon Lin, the 1st and 2nd defendants acting in their capacity as the administrators of the estate of Lim Theng Hoe (deceased) in the High Court against the decision of the learned High Court Judge allowing the claim of the respondent, Lim Shok Choo, the plaintiff in the High Court.

[5] Having considered the written submissions and having heard the oral submissions of the respective Counsel representing the parties in both the appeals, in our considered view there is one primary issue in both appeals. The issue is whether the Distribution Act 1958 (Act 300) prevails over any contractual arrangement which affects the estate of a deceased who dies intestate.

Salient Facts

[6] The facts stated herein are applicable to both Appeals unless otherwise stated. The appellant in Appeal 2641 and the respondent in Appeal 631 are the lawful daughters and next of kin of Lim Theng Hoe (deceased) who died intestate on 31 May 1988. They are both half-sisters.

[7] The respondents in Appeal 2641 and the appellants in Appeal 631 are the Administrators of the estate of Lim Theng Hoe (deceased) pursuant to the Grant of Letters of Administration granted under Penang High Court Petition No 44-277-1988 on 1 December 2011 and extracted on 24 March 2014.

[8] The subject matter in dispute in both Appeals is property, Lot No 220, Mukim 4, Daerah Barat Daya, Penang held under Grant No 18350 which is listed as one of the assets in the Grant of Letters of Administration ('the subject property').

[9] The appellant in Appeal 2641 and the respondent in Appeal 631 are claiming a share of the subject property.

[10] The deceased had on 18 May 1973 executed the Declaration of Gift (P2) intending to make a gift of the proceeds of sale of his properties to all members of his family consisting of his two wives and his children. The properties involved two property estates which the deceased termed as the "Lim Theng Hoe Estate (Balik Pulau)" and the "Thye Aik Estate". The subject property is included in the Lim Theng Hoe Estate (Balik Pulau) and the appellant in Appeal 2641 and the respondent in Appeal 631 are members of the family listed in the document dated 18 May 1973.

[11] The deceased further entered Agreements dated 25 July 1973 (P3) with each of the appellant in Appeal 2641 and the respondent in Appeal 631 declaring to give each of them their gift of monies in the sum of RM11,857.15 respectively (one-seventh (1/7) of one equal share).

[12] The deceased executed an Acknowledgment and Declaration on 30 October 1975 (P5) declaring that he made payments to his family members, including the appellant in Appeal 2641 and respondent in Appeal 631 their gift of monies in the sum of RM11,857.15. Only the deceased as the maker solely signed the Acknowledgment and Declaration dated 30 October 1975. There were no signatures of any beneficiary.

[13] The factual difference between the two Appeals is this: in Appeal 2641, the appellant's po