JUDGMENT

PS Gill J:

The plaintiff's cause of action is based upon a Deed of Admission, and Acknowledgment, executed by the defendant, on 24 April 1996. The Deed Of Admission and Acknowledgment was executed by the defendant on 26 April 1996, and produced and marked in court as P1.

For ease of reference P1 reads as follows:

This Deed Of Admission and Acknowledgment is made the 26 day of April, 1996 between LASMAN DAS A/L SUNDRA SHAH (NRIC NO. 7641874) No. 43, Pesara Pasir Puteh, Taman Boon Bak, 16050 Ipoh, Perak (hereinafter called the First Party) of the one part And LEE TECK SENG (NRIC NO. 4063396) of No.5, Jalan Hussein, 30250 Ipoh (hereinafter called the Second Party) of the other part.

Whereas the First Party hereby admits, acknowledges and confirms that since 1989 the second Party has paid to the First Party various sums of money totalling Ringgit One Million Two Hundred and Sixty Thousand (RM1,260,000.00) only for the purpose of investment in business ventures by the First Party on behalf of the Second Party.

Now this deed witnesseth as follows:

1. In consideration of the above premises the First Party hereby admits and acknowledges that the Second Party has since 1989 paid to the First Party various sums of money totalling Ringgit One Million Two Hundred And Sixty Thousand (RM1,260,000.00) only for the purpose of investment in business ventures (hereinafter referred to as the Investment Sum) and the First Party hereby also declares that he holds the Investment Sum and all dividends and profits derived therefrom On Trust for the Second Party.

2. Pending the repayment of the ...

In witness whereof the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written.

SIGNED by the said LASMAN DAS ]

A/L SUNDRA SHAH in the presence ] sgd

of: ]

YAP KEW @ YAP SHOO FAH

I/C No.1408798

Signed by the said LEE TECK SENG ]

in the presence of ] sgd

]

The plaintiff contended that the said document P1 was executed by the defendant, attested by 2 persons, namely PW1 and PW3, and was read, and understood by the defendant himself, who was an educated person. The deed was executed primarily for monies lent to the defendant, by the plaintiff, for the purpose of investment, over a period of time. A brief history was given by plaintiff as to how the said relationship between plaintiff and defendant emerged, and how the monies came to be lent to the defendant. The total sum evidenced in P1 was the principal sum invested, together with the unpaid dividends that the plaintiff was promised by the defendant.

The defendant's defence in the main, was that he was under the influence of liquor at the material time when he signed the said document, and he did not realise what he was signing. He was under the misimpression at the material time, that what he was signing was a recommendation in respect of a purchase of a vehicle that the plaintiff had spoken to him about a week before the event. He categorically denied that the contents of the documents were explained by him to two of the attesting witnesses, and further contended that there was a variation in his signature on the document and his normal signature, because of the inebriated state he was in. He equally denied owing any sums of monies to the plaintiff, though he admitted having borrowed money from plaintiff in the past of which, everything has since been paid.

The defendant had counter-claimed for a sum of RM100,000 which he allegedly gave to the plaintiff, due to the constant harassment of the plaintiff as a result of his signing the said Deed of Admission of Debt.

Certain salient issues surfaces from these brief recital of facts, which I propose to examine.

Non Est Factum And Other Related Issues

It is trite law that when a party signs a contract knowing it to be a contract which governs the relations between them, like the present case, then, to use the words of Denning J (as he then was) in Curtis v. Chemical Cleaning & Dyung Co. Ltd. [1951] 1 All er 631, "His signature