A testator's clear exclusion of beneficiaries in their will precludes partial intestacy, even in the absence of a residuary clause.

Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ:

[1] The appellants/defendants were granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court on the following single question of law:

"Where a testator by his will creates a trust over the whole of his estate and devises and bequeaths the same to his trustee whilst specifically excluding his heirs at law as beneficiaries of his estate, does the absence of a residuary clause result in a partial intestacy over any part of the said estate?"

[2] After hearing the submissions of the parties and due consideration of the written submissions of the same, we unanimously answered the question in the negative and allowed the appeal. We hereby provide our reasons for the said decision.

[3] In this judgment, parties shall be referred to as they were, in the High Court.

Background

[4] The 1st-4th plaintiffs and the 1st-2nd defendants are the lawful children to Ujagar Singh (Ujagar) and Nihal Kaur (Nihal).

[5] Nihal executed her last Will and Testament on 5 October 2001 and passed away on 24 March 2013.

[6] Ujagar executed his last Will and Testament on 31 March 2007 and passed away on 4 December 2014.

[7] Upon the death of Ujagar and Nihal, the 1st defendant was appointed as the executor for both Nihal's and Ujagar's estates. The plaintiffs subsequently found out through a land Search at the Land Office on 19 January 2016 that the ¼ share of the property held under H.S.(D) 48086, PT 47593, Mukim and Daerah Kuala Lumpur which was in Nihal's name (the said Property) had been transferred to the defendants in equal share on 19 August 2015.

[8] Dispute arose between the siblings, in respect of the said Property.

[9] It is to be noted that the whole property held under H.S.(D) 48086, PT 47593, Mukim and Daerah Kuala Lumpur were divided into 4 shares, ¼ was held by Nihal, ¼ by Ujagar, ¼ by the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant respectively. The disputes as alluded to earlier, relate to the said Property, which is the ¼ share held by Nihal.

[10] The issue is whether the said Property was willed in Ujagar's Will.

[11] To resolve the dispute, the plaintiffs filed an Originating Summons in the High Court for certain reliefs. We hereby reproduced the said reliefs prayed for, in its original text:

"(i) Bahawa defendan pertama selaku Wasi Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh Bertarikh 31 Mac 2007 menurut Geran probet Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh (Saman Pemula No: 32NCVC-308-03/2015) bertarikh 30 Mac 2015 melaksanakan pembahagian bagi lebihan daripada harta pusaka Ujagar Singh Phuma Singh (iaitu ¼ bahagian hartanah lot kedai yang dipegang di bawah No. Hakmilik 62660, Lot 47593, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan) menurut Akta Probet dan Pentadbiran 1959 kepada kesemua waris - waris Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah;

(ii) Bahawa defendan pertama selaku Wasi bagi Wasiat Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh bertarikh 31 Mac 2007 menurut Geran Probet Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh (Saman Pemula No 32NCVC-308-03/2015) bertarikh 30 Mac 2015 melaksanakan pindahmilik ¼ bahagian hartanah lot kedai yang dipegang di bawah No. Hakmilik 62660, Lot 47593, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan kepada kesemua waris- waris Ujagar Singh Phuman Singh dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah;

(iii) Bahawa defendan-defendan memberikan pendedahan berkenaan butiran penyewaan dan memberikan Salinan Perjanjian Penyewaan hartanah lot kedai yang dipegang dibawah No. Hakmilik 62660, Lot 47593, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan kepada kesemua plaintif-plaintif dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah;

(iv) Bahawa defendan-defendan menyerahkan dan membahagikan hasil bayaran sewa bagi hartanah lot kedai yang dipegang di bawah No. Hakmilik 62660, Lot 47593, Mukim Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan yang mana pengiraan hendaklah bermula dari tarikh kematian Ujagar Singh a/l Phuman Singh kepada plaintif-plaintif menurut bahagian yang plaintif-plaintif berhak menerima dalam tempoh 14 hari dari tarikh perintah."

The Findings Of The High Court

[12] The learned High Court Judg