The doctrine of res judicata is pivotal in maintaining the finality of judgments; previous orders must be adhered to unless set aside appropriately.

[1] The appeal before us stems from a dispute over the estate of one Gan Lai Kim, and is between the appellant Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim who is the daughter and administrator of the estate of Gan Lai Kim on the one hand, and the administrators of the estate of Gan Soon Cheow, her late brother on the other. They are the respondents in this appeal. Gan Lai Kim and Gan Soon Cheow are father and son respectively. Accordingly, Gan Jin Sim and Gan Soon Cheow, deceased, were sister and brother respectively. The respondents are the son and wife respectively of Gan Soon Cheow.

[2] The primary ground of appeal revolves around the issue of res judicata. Specifically, the issue for consideration before us was whether a judgment in default of appearance obtained in the High Court, which was neither set aside nor taken up on appeal, can be relitigated on its merits in another High Court of coordinate jurisdiction in a different set of proceedings, the end result of which was to effectively set aside the earlier judgment of the original High Court.

[3] The appellant's appeal is premised on the ground that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the appellant's claim for a property which a different High Court judge included in an order to be returned to the appellant's late father's estate. The appellant contended that the High Court was functus officio in altering the extent of the earlier Court order and that because the defendants did not appeal against the earlier Court order, the matter was now res judicata.

[4] We allowed the appeal and append the reasons for our decision below. The salient facts and the relationship between the parties are also set out below. The parties will be referred to as they were in the High Court for ease of reference.

The Parties

[5] Gan Lai Kim, deceased, passed away without a will on 23 December 1971 ('the deceased father, Gan Lai Kim').

[6] The deceased father, Gan Lai Kim, passed away intestate. His wife, Lim Poh Le, passed away on 10 May 1996.

[7] The deceased father, Gan Lai Kim, had two children, namely a daughter, the plaintiff, Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim, and her brother, Gan Soon Cheow, who passed away on 8 March 1977 ('the deceased, Gan Soon Cheow').

[8] Gan Jin Sim @ Gan Gim Sim is the current administrator of the deceased father's estate vide a KL High Court order dated 16 October 2012 and a letter of administration issued by the KL High Court on 31 January 2013 ('the plaintiff'). She is the appellant before us and the plaintiff in the Court below.

[9] Gan Chon Tat, the 1st defendant, is the son of Gan Soon Cheow, and he is the plaintiff's nephew ('the 1st defendant').

[10] Aong Chai Ngaa, the 2nd defendant, is the wife of the deceased, Gan Soon Cheow. She is the mother of the 1st defendant and is the plaintiff's sister-in-law ('the 2nd defendant').

[11] Both defendants are the respondents before us. They were sued as the joint administrators of the estate of the deceased, Gan Soon Cheow.

Salient Facts

[12] The deceased father, Gan Lai Kim, owned three properties which are all situated in Seksyen 1, Bandar Kota Bharu, Kelantan Darul Naim.

[13] The land at the centre of the present dispute is held under Grant No. 5477 and is known as PN 889, Lot No. 17, Seksyen 1, Bandar Kota Bharu, Kelantan Darul Naim, held under Geran No. 5447 ('Lot 17'). The other two properties are Lot 19 held under Grant No. 5479 and Lot No. 29 held under Grant No. 5524. Collectively, these will be referred to as 'the three pieces of land'.

[14] After the demise of the deceased father, Gan Lai Kim, without a will, Gan Soon Chew obtained a distribution order dated 23 June 1973 and a letter of administration dated 2 July 1973. However, the plaintiff applied to the Kota Bharu High Court in Suit No. 53 of 1981 ('Suit No. 53') to set aside both the distribution or