Illegitimate children can inherit under intestacy laws if a reasonable belief in their parents' marriage validity existed, as recognized by statutory interpretation.

[1] My learned brother, Abdul Rahman bin Sebli, CJSS and my learned sister, Hasnah binti Mohammed Hashim, FCJ have read this judgment in draft and have agreed that this judgment forms the unanimous judgment of this Court.

[2] While there are two central issues for this Court's consideration, the real issue here concerns the right of illegitimate children to inherit under the laws of intestacy in this country. This question vexes the non-Muslim community due to the interplay of two key legislations in this respect - the Distribution Act 1958 [Act 300] and the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 [Act 164]. The claim to this right sometimes, unfortunately, strains relationships with the innocent child caught in nether land. Often, the existence of the illegitimate child is not known until one of the parents has demised, and there is no provision for such children, inter vivos. The circumstances in the present appeal are a clear illustration although the existence of the so-called 'illegitimate' child was well-known. She was and is very much part of the larger extended family.

[3] These are the four amended questions posed for our determination:

i. Whether the term 'child' as defined in s 3 of the Distribution Act 1958 includes a child born of a Chinese customary marriage?

ii. Whether the term 'child' in s 3 of the Distribution Act 1958 read with s 75(2) of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 includes a child born of a Chinese customary marriage as a legitimate child for succession purposes?

iii. Whether the term 'child' and 'issue' in the Distribution Act 1958 should be read in a non-discriminatory way in the light of art 8 of the Federal Constitution to include all the natural born children of the deceased?

iv. Whether the removal of the appointment of co-administrator by letter of administration duly granted by the High Court can be undertaken other than under the grounds applicable for the revocation of a grant or removal of administrator under s 34 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 which relates to the interest of the beneficiaries of the estate?

An additional question, "Whether the term 'child' in s 6(1)(g) of the Distribution Act 1958 applies to all the natural born children of a deceased for succession purposes?" was allowed on 25 January 2021.

Underlying Facts

[4] Two suits, namely Civil Suit No:22NcVC-297-06/2015 [Suit 1] and Civil Suit No: BA-22NcVC-571-10/2016 [Suit 2] consolidated at the High Court vide order of Court dated 15 March 2016, were heard together at the High Court.

[5] Suit 1 is an action taken by Tan Ying, a joint-administrator, to remove Tan Kah Fatt, the other administrator of the estate of Tan Kah Yong, deceased, leaving Tan Ying as the sole administrator. Suit 2 is initiated by Y Teq Motors Sdn Bhd and YE Motorcycles Sdn Bhd, two companies where the deceased was a director, shareholder and co-owner. The deceased was also the registered owner of three cars. He had also taken out a life insurance policy with AIA where the pay-out upon his death was a sum of RM6,689,542.01. The two companies sought to recover from the administrators of the estate of the deceased, monies paid under the insurance policy, return of the three cars used by the deceased as well as a loan allegedly taken by the deceased that remained unpaid. According to the two companies, the insurance policy was for the protection of the business of the companies and with the demise of the deceased, the monies paid out under the policy belongs to the companies.

[6] Both suits arose following the death of Tan Kah Yong who passed away on 7 October 2012 due to a motor-vehicle accident. He died intestate. He left behind a wife, Tan Ying whom he married on 18 January 2005 and a daughter, T