JUDGMENT

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] In this judgment, the parties are referred to as they were before the trial court. The present appeal arises from the decision of the Sessions court. The Sessions court allowed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the sum RM114,500.00.

[2] The central issue in this appeal concerned whether the plaintiff possessed the requisite locus standi to initiate the action in the Sessions court. This question arose because the plaintiff had filed the action prior to extracting the Grant of Letters of Administration. After thoroughly considering the submissions of both parties and examining the authorities cited, I allowed the appeal.

Brief Matrix Of Facts

[3] Pritam Kaur a/p Sadu Singh ("Deceased") passed away intestate on 2 July 2000. At the time of her demise, she was survived by four beneficiaries. These beneficiaries were Sarjeet Singh a/l Dershan Singh, Kalwant Singh Gill a/l Dershan Singh, the defendant himself and Manmant Singh a/l Dershan Singh.

[4] On 17 October 2000, the High court granted Letters of Administration in respect of the Deceased's estate. The grant appointed Sarjeet Singh a/l Dershan Singh and the defendant as joint administrators. This appointment vested them with the authority to administer and manage the estate of the Deceased.

[5] On 18 December 2013, the defendant's name was formally removed from the Letters of Administration. This removal occurred as a consequence of the defendant's bankruptcy status which disqualified him from serving as an administrator under the law.

[6] Following this development, Sarjeet Singh a/l Dershan Singh remained as the sole administrator of the Deceased's estate vested with the exclusive authority to manage and administer the estate in accordance with the terms of the grant.

[7] On 5 August 2015, Sarjeet Singh a/l Dershan Singh passed away before fully administering the estate of the Deceased. His death left the administration of the estate incomplete. Among the unadministered assets was a property identified as H.S.(D) 176237, Lot 2, s 11, Bandar Petaling Jaya ("Property").

[8] The Property was occupied by tenants and rental income was collected by various parties over different periods. During the period from 1 July 2020 to 1 January 2022, the defendant admitted to collecting rental income amounting to RM104,500.00. This collection was made without dispute or contention regarding the amount received.

[9] On 30 December 2021, the High court appointed the plaintiff as the administrator de bonis non in respect of the Deceased's estate. This appointment was necessary to complete the administration of the estate's unadministered assets. However, the Grant of Letters of Administration de bonis non was formally extracted only on 16 January 2023, providing the plaintiff with the legal authority to act in that capacity.

[10] On 30 March 2022, prior to extracting the Grant of Letters of Administration de bonis non, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings in the Sessions court against the defendant. The action sought to recover rental allegedly collected by the defendant, amounting to RM114,500.00. This claim was based on the defendant's purported collection of rental from the Property during the relevant period.

[11] At the trial, following the conclusion of the plaintiff's case the defendant chose not to present any evidence in defense. Instead, the defendant submitted that there was no case to answer, asserting that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case. After considering the submissions, the learned Sessions court Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. The Sessions court allowed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety.

Analysis And Findings

[12] The main question in this appeal was whether the plaintiff possessed the legal capacity to initiate proceedings against the defendant on 30 March 2022. At that time, the plaintiff had yet to extract the Grant of Letters of Administration de bonis non. It was only issued late