Choo Kah Sing JCA:

Introduction

[1] This appeal centers on the issue of the testator's knowledge and approval of the terms of a will. On 10 October 2024, the parties respective counsels submitted orally before this Court , and the Court decided to reserve its decision. This Court , after having considered both sides submissions, and after having examined the evidence at the Court below, has come to a decision, and the decision is as below.

Salient Facts

[2] Nantha Kumaran a/l Saravanamuthu (hereafter the testator ) executed his Last Will And Testament on 29 April 2019 (hereafter the impugned will ). Not long after the execution of the impugned will, the testator passed away on 7 June 2019. The appellant, Teoh Ying Rin, who was the defendant at the Court below, was appointed as the executor and trustee of the testator's impugned will. Sometime in July 2019, the appellant filed an Originating Summons via Suit No BA-32NCvC-580-07/2019 seeking for a Grant of Probate of the impugned will. However, the application was contested by the respondent, Savatery a/p Jayaraman, the lawful wife of the testator. Consequently, the contentious probate was converted to a writ action (BA-22NCVC-167-06/2020) at the Court below, and the respondent, being the plaintiff at the Court below, took out the said action against the appellant. The respondent contended that it was not safe for the Court to probate the impugned will because there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned will.

The Decision Of The High Court

[3] From the outset, the respondent did not challenge the testator's testamentary capacity nor the authenticity of the signature of the testator on the impugned will. The issues before the High Court were then narrowed down to first, whether there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned will which could move the Court not to allow the impugned will to be probated if those suspicious circumstances were not dispelled or removed through affirmative proof, and secondly, whether the testator was subject to undue influence in signing and making the impugned will.

[4] The learned High Court Judge, after a full trial, was satisfied that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned will, and the appellant's evidence did not remove those suspicions to satisfy the judicial conscience into believing and accepting that the terms in the impugned will were the true intention of and approved by the testator and that the terms represented the testator's last wishes.

[5] The learned High Court Judge found the following facts were glaring suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned will. First, the appellant being the propounder of the impugned will had taken a prominent role in the making and execution of the same, including preparing the impugned will. Secondly, the appellant would be receiving a substantial benefit of the testator's estate if the impugned will was probated (see: Fuller v. Strum [2001] 1 WLR 1097, the English CoA; Barry v. Butlin [1838] 2 Moo PC 480, 483).

[6] The learned High Court Judge was also troubled by the fact that the appellant had prepared two wills previously, one in 2017 and the other in 2018. The appellant could not produce the two wills in the trial, and the reason offered by the appellant was that they had been destroyed. The appellant informed that she did not keep any softcopy of the two previous wills. The learned High Court Judge observed that there were discrepancies in the appellant's testimony in the witness statement and the oral testimony in Court . The learned High Court Judge stated in her grounds of judgment as follows:

[100] On the 2nd part of issue (i) i.e., whether this Court should allow the 2019 Will to be probated, the answer depends on whether the Defendant dispels or removes the suspicious circumstances by presenting clear and cogent evidence and the con