A beneficiary cannot initiate legal action on behalf of a deceased's estate without letters of administration, as locus standi is a legal prerequisite for any claim. Special circumstances do not excuse this requirement.

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant ("D") filed a notice of application dated 25 October 2024 vide Encl 52 to determine the locus standi of the Plaintiff ("P"). Enclosure 52 is made under O 33 r 2, 3 and 5 of the Rules of Court 2012.

[2] On 6 December 2024, I allowed Encl 52. I made a determination that P does not have the locus standi to commence this suit. I therefore struck out P's action against D. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[3] The late Sivagamyammal ("grandmother") passed away intestate on 3 May 1967. She left behind numerous immovable properties ("properties").

[4] She also left behind ten children. Among them were: (i) D's late father, who was the previous administrator, who died on 3 June 1995; and (ii) P's late father, who died on 1 August 1998 ("father").

[5] D was appointed as the administrator de bonis non of the estate of the grandmother, replacing his late father. The letters of administration was granted to D on 16 February 2015, and extracted on 6 July 2015.

The Suit Herein By The Plaintiff

[6] P commenced the instant suit on 26 September 2023. In this suit, P seeks a declaration that his father has interest as a beneficiary in the estate of the grandmother. In turn, a declaration that the heirs of the father's estate have interest to the father's entitlement in the grandmother's estate.

[7] At para 8 of the statement of claim, P prayed for the following reliefs:

"i. Satu Perintah dan / atau Deklarasi bahawa mendiang bapa Plaintif mempunyai hak dan kepentingan sebagai benefisiari sah ke atas harta pesaka Sivagamyammal.

ii. Satu Perintah dan / atau Deklarasi bahawa waris - waris kadim mendiang bapa Plaintif mempunyai hak dan kepentingan sebagai benefisiari sah ke atas harta pesaka mendiang bapa Plaintif yang di turunkan daripada harta pesaka Sivagamyammal.

iii. Plaintif menuntut Defendan melaksanakan tugas - tugas fidusiari sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pesaka De Bonis Non Harta Pesaka Sivagamyammal w/o Govindasamy.

iv. Defendan sebagai Pentadbir De Bonis Harta Pesaka Sivagamyammal, simati mengambil langkah - langkah yang munasabah dan segera untuk menjual bahagian syer Plaintif dalam kesemua harta pesaka Sivagamyammal, simati yang masih belum di bahagikan di mana hartanah tersebut perlu di jual mengikut nilai pasaran dan di bahagikan kepada Plaintif milik syer mereka.

v. Satu Perintah bahawa Defendan hendaklah menunjukkan dan mengemukakan inventori akaun yang benar dan sempurna terhadap harta pesaka Sivagamyammal, simati yang masih belum di bahagikan sejak kematian Sivagamyammal, simati pada tahun 1967 sehingga sekarang.

vi. Gantirugi am.

vii. Gantirugi khas (jika ada) di bayar oleh Defendan kepada Plaintif."

[8] Essentially, P is claiming for a share in the properties left behind by his grandmother. This is reflected in prayer (iv) above. Where he wants D to take immediate steps to sell his share of the properties at market value, and distribute the proceeds to him.

[9] Ancillary to that, P demands that D carries out his fiduciary duty as administrator. And furnish a true and complete account in respect of the estate of the grandmother, which remains undistributed from her demise in the year 1967 until now.

The Plaintiff's Representative Capacity

[10] It is imperative to note that P is not suing in his personal capacity or as a beneficiary of his father's estate. He had filed this action describing himself as the 'personal representative' (wakil diri) of the estate of his father.

[11] Pertinently, s 2 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 defines "personal representative" to mean the executor or