Ramesh Sivaraj A/l Rajasingham Chelliah Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah

Ramesh Sivaraj A/l Rajasingham Chelliah Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah

The Plaintiff discharged the initial burden by producing the original signed Agreement and supporting documentary and contemporaneous evidence of remittances; the onus then shifted to the Defendant to prove forgery which he failed to discharge, and the trial Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the late forensic handwriting application; therefore there was no error of law or fact warranting appellate interference and the Sessions Court judgment was affirmed.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Ramesh Sivaraj a/l Rajasingam Chelliah; Respondent/plaintiff: Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 January 2025
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-21-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, Forgery of Signature, Burden of Proof, Forensic Handwriting Analysis, Documentary Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Loan Agreement Forgery of Signature Burden of Proof Forensic Handwriting Analysis Documentary Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Sivaraj a/l Rajasingam Chelliah

Appellant/defendant

Sithamparanathan a/l Nadarajah

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Sessions Court) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether RM275,000 (or RM250,000 as proved) was remitted and constituted a loan enforceable under the Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Agreement presented at trial was authentic or the Defendant's signature on it forged
  3. 3 Who bore the burden and onus of proof regarding authenticity and alleged forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff discharged the initial burden by producing the original signed Agreement and supporting documentary and contemporaneous evidence of remittances; the onus then shifted to the Defendant to prove forgery which he failed to discharge, and the trial Judge properly exercised discretion in refusing the late forensic handwriting application; therefore there was no error of law or fact warranting appellate interference and the Sessions Court judgment was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Sessions Court affirmed: appellant to pay RM250000.00 with interest and costs to the respondent