Lord Keith of Kinkel:

This appeal is concerned with rights of succession in the estate of the late Tong Poh Hwa ("the deceased") a man of Chinese origin professing the Buddhist faith, who died intestate on 22 December 1960. Letters of Administration were granted to the appellants on 24 August 1961.

The deceased was lawfully married to the first appellant on 11 May 1947, and there were seven children of the marriage.

On 3 December 1952 the deceased entered into a marriage agreement with the first respondent, whereby it was recited that the parties were desirous of contracting a marriage according to Chinese rites and traditions and were willing to become husband and wife with the full consent of their respective parents upon the conditions therein set out. These conditions included (a) that the husband should pay the wife RM300 per month for her maintenance, subject to such increase as his financial circumstances might permit; (b) that he would within a reasonable time execute a marriage settlement in the wife's favour entitling her to a share of the husband's property or alternatively undertake to bequeath to her a share of his property for her use and enjoyment, and (c) that in the event of the husband deserting the wife he would continue to pay her the minimum allowance of RM300 per month. The wife covenanted that on execution of the agreement she would consummate the marriage with the husband and thereafter live with him as husband and wife.

On 17 December 1952 the deceased and the first respondent went through a marriage ceremony according to Buddhist rites at a Chinese restaurant in Kuala Lumpur. The marriage was registered by the Registrar of Marriages for Selangor on 21 February 1953. Under s. 3 and Schedule A of the Marriage Registration Enactment the registered particulars of the marriage are required to include "whether the husband has any other wife living and, if so, names and addresses of all such wives". In the registered particulars of this marriage there was entered against that head the word "Nil".

The deceased and the first respondent lived together until his death. There were four children of the union. They are the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents. After the death of the deceased, the first respondent received regular monthly payments of RM300, increased to RM700 from 1972 onwards. The payments ceased in 1975. The first respondent believed that these payments came from the estate of the deceased. The evidence on the source of these payments was sketchy in the extreme, but contained some indication that they may have come from a company in which the deceased's estate had an interest.

When the payments ceased, the first respondent took legal advice, and as a result she and the other respondents, on 24 March 1978, instituted proceedings against the appellants as administrators of the deceased's estate by originating summons in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. The relief sought in the summons included declarations that the first respondent and the other respondents were respectively the lawful widow and the lawful issue of the deceased, and were accordingly beneficiaries of his estate and entitled to share therein under s. 6 of the Distribution Ordinance 1958, and also orders for delivery of a statement of the assets and liabilities of the estate and accounts from the date of death.

The case came before Suffian LP sitting at first instance. There were two issues between the parties. The first was whether the marriage between the deceased and the first respondent was valid, the principal argument against the validity being that the existence of the earlier marriage between the deceased and the first appellant had not been disclosed. The second issue was whether the respondents' claim was time barred under the provisions of the Limitation Ordinance 1953. The learned Lord President decided both these issues in favour of the respondents, and on 16 April 1979 he made an order granting the declarat