Beneficiaries of an intestate estate have the right to interim distributions of compensation funds, emphasizing the duty of administrators to act expeditiously.

Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Distribution Act 1958 - Land Acquisition Act 1960 - The court confirmed the right of beneficiaries to interim distribution of an estate's compensation pending final settlement - Plaintiffs sought RM542,713.68 from the Defendant as part of entitlement for two lands acquired by the government, having waited 27 years for estate distribution. (Paras 19, 20, 40)

(B) Legal Rights of Beneficiaries - Beneficiaries of an intestate estate may not be denied their rightful share indefinitely due to the administration delay - The court emphasized the urgency to protect beneficiaries' interests against misuse of administrative powers (Paras 24, 38)

(C) Conduct of Administrators - An administrator cannot selectively distribute estate assets or fail to inform beneficiaries of progress; estoppel by conduct applies to prevent contradictory claims (Paras 33, 39)

(D) Jurisdiction of the Court - The Power of the Court under s 25A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 allows for interim payments to beneficiaries in pending cases. (Paras 19, 40)

Findings of Court:
The court found the Defendant had not complied with his duties, highlighting the delay in estate administration, and ruled for partial distribution of entitlements.

Issues: Whether the Defendant could withhold distributions pending completion of estate administration and whether such delay causes prejudice to beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rights of beneficiaries must be honored immediately, and long delays without proper justification are unacceptable; thus, interim distribution was warranted.

Result: Application partly allowed with costs of RM10,000 to be borne by the Defendant personally.

Table of Content
1. court finalized earlier decision. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation. (Para 8 , 17)
3. delay in administration impact on beneficiaries. (Para 11 , 12 , 16)
4. court's authority on estate administration. (Para 19 , 20 , 22)
5. defendant's failure to act on administration. (Para 21 , 24 , 26 , 39)
6. court grants interim relief to prevent injustice. (Para 38 , 40)

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of this Court delivered on 4 February 2025 whereby the the Court decided the Plaintiffs' application in the Originating Summons (OS) No AB-24NCVC-190-07/2024 encl 1 mostly in their favour, and ordered that costs of RM10,000.00 to be borne by the Defendant personally and not from the estate of the deceased, RM.M.SM Karuppan Chettiar @SM KR Karuppan Chettiar @ SM.KR.Karuppan Chettiar Son Of Somasundaram Chettiar@ SM.KR. Karuppan Chettiar S/O Somasundaram Chettiar (the said Deceased).

[2] The OS was filed on 4 July 2024 and parties had been given the opportunity to file their respective replies and then written submissions, accordingly. During an e-review case management before me to fix the hearing date for encl 1, parties agreed for the matter to be heard on 12 December 2024 but on 11 December 2024, the eve of the hearing date, Messrs. K. Thushani & Co (second solicitor) wrote to the Court requesting for the hearing to be postponed as they had just been appointed. The Plaintiffs' solicitors objected to the application, and the Court did not allow it because all the cause papers and submissions had already been filed by Messrs. Ven & Associates (first solicitor). Thus, the hearing went on in the afternoon of 12 December 2024, instead, and she relied on the written submissions that were filed by the first solicitor. The decision date was fixed for 16 January 2025 with the agreement of both solicitors.

[3] However, on 10 January 2025, encl 22 was filed to bring in third parties into the suit. The Notis Kebenaran Untuk Mengeluarkan Notis Kepada Pihak Ketiga was filed by the Defendant's third solicitor (Messrs. Nagarajan Peri &Co). They requested for the hearing of encl 22 to be conducted on the same date of the decision. On 16 January 2025, the Court heard the preliminary objections raised by the Plaintiffs' solicitors in regard to the last-minute application filed by the Defendant's counsel. The intended third parties were solicitors and law firms who had acted upon the Defendant's instructions in some conveyancing matters concerning the lands (subject-matter of the OS) and also his first solicitor Messrs. Ven & Associates. After hearing the submissions by both sides, the Court adjourned for decision to 4 February 2025 wherein on that date, the Court dismissed encl 22 with no order as to costs because a third-party proceeding may be a separate cause of action pursued against them. The Court then proceeded to pronounce its decision on encl 1 by partly allowing it. Hence, the present appeal.

[4] For the record, the Defendant changed solicitors 3 times within the span of a few months (including the re-appointment of the first solicitor, Messrs. Ven & Associates, who filed a Notice Pertukaran Peguam in March 2025, Encl 37)! They filed the Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 3 March 2025 and recently a fourth solicitor (Messrs. R Raja Gopal & Co) has filed a Notis Pertukaran Peguam, representing the Defendant in the appeal.

The Cause Papers

[5] The cause papers filed were as follows:

(a) Originating Summons dated 4 July 2024 (Encl 1);

(b) Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Support affirmed on 17 June 2024 (Encl 2);

(d) Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Reply affirmed on 1 August 2024 (Encl 6);

(e) Defendant's Affidavit in Reply (2) affirmed on 20 August 2024 (Encl 7); and

(f) Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Reply (2) affirmed on 2 September 2024 (Encl 8).

[6] I have taken the background facts from the cause papers filed b