Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

Preliminary

[1] This appeal concerns the validity of a will. The arguments before us took 12 days. The appeal was argued with thoroughness that is rarely seen at the Bar these days. In fact, many of the authorities referred to in this judgment are those cited by counsel to us. We would therefore at the very outset express our gratitude to counsel for their assistance and in particular to both Mr T. Thomas and Dato' (Dr) Cyrus Das for having taken us through the evidence and the judgment under appeal with a fine-tooth comb. Their assistance has made our task that much lighter.

[2] It is manifestly clear that this appeal raises no new question of law at all. Indeed, counsel on both sides rely on the same well established principles of law. Counsel for both sides are also agreed that this appeal turns on the peculiar facts of this case. Where they are in disagreement is whether this is an appropriate case for appellate intervention given that it turns on questions of fact. The respondents say that the instant appeal falls within the general rule of appellate non-interference. On the other hand the appellants say that this is an appropriate case for appellate interference although it involves only questions of fact. We therefore have to decide whether this is a case where the trial court was plainly wrong in its appreciation of the facts and evidence.

The Narrative

[4] The deceased - for that is what we will call old Mr Gan - had five children by his wife who had pre-deceased him. There were three daughters and two sons. One of the daughters was given away in adoption. A son was adopted. Of the remaining two daughters, one emigrated to Australia. The other stayed on in Melaka. Although she lived in her own home with her family she frequently visited her father Both daughters are married and settled with families of their own.

[5] By the account of those who knew him well, the deceased was a frugal man. He was tight-fisted. He had a strong personality. He was careful about his affairs. He always had a positive outlook on life. He was a private person. So, when it came to his health he was reluctant to discuss any problems he had. At one stage, he experienced difficulty in swallowing. But it was only upon the insistence of his family that he disclosed this. When he was medically examined it was found that he was suffering from cancer of an aggressive nature.

[6] During his lifetime the deceased appears to have conducted himself in the manner of a feudal head of a joint family. That joint family comprised of the deceased, his sons, their wives and their children all of whom either lived with him or depended on him for their livelihood. His sons, particularly his eldest son (the second defendant) who lived with him, were treated by him more as his employees than his children. His wife ran the joint family household until her death. After that, in true feudal style, the deceased handed the entire running of that household to his eldest daughter-in-law (DW7), the second defendant's wife. In other words, DW7 succeeded her mother-in-law as the female head of the joint family household. The deceased placed implicit trust in her He trusted her to the extent that she held the keys to the safe in which he kept his valuables and important documents. However, he was fond of his daughters (the plaintiffs), especially the daughter in Australia (the first plaintiff).

[7] In 1993, the deceased had a fall at home and was confined to a wheelchair When the state of his p