PASKARAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 1. ) AYYAVU A/L MUNUSAMY 2. ) TOKIO MARINE LIFE INSURANCE BERHAD

PASKARAN A/L RAMAKRISHNAN 1. ) AYYAVU A/L MUNUSAMY 2. ) TOKIO MARINE LIFE INSURANCE BERHAD

The forensic document examiner's opinion that the questioned signature did not match multiple specimen signatures, coupled with the evasive and inconsistent testimony of the witness who allegedly witnessed the signing and absence of any rebuttal expert evidence from the First Defendant, satisfied the burden on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff's signature was forged; therefore the Absolute Assignment is null and void.

Citation
AA-A52NCvC-65-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Paskaran a/l Ramakrishnan; First Defendant: Ayyavu a/l Munusamy; Second Defendant: Tokio Marine Life Insurance Berhad
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Case Number
AA-A52NCvC-65-04/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment (sessions Court)
Outcome
Declaration granted that the Absolute Assignment dated 3 September 2013 is null and void; Plaintiff succeeds on main claim; damages not proven.
Legal Topics
Absolute Assignment, Forgery of Signature, Handwriting Expert Opinion, Declaration of Nullity, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Evidence Contract Law Civil Procedure Absolute Assignment Forgery of Signature Handwriting Expert Opinion Declaration of Nullity +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paskaran a/l Ramakrishnan

Plaintiff

Ayyavu a/l Munusamy

First Defendant

Tokio Marine Life Insurance Berhad

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment (sessions Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the signature on the Absolute Assignment dated 3 September 2013 was forged
  2. 2 Whether the Absolute Assignment is null and void and ownership of the policy should revert to the Plaintiff
  3. 3 What standard of proof applies to allegations of forgery in civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The forensic document examiner's opinion that the questioned signature did not match multiple specimen signatures, coupled with the evasive and inconsistent testimony of the witness who allegedly witnessed the signing and absence of any rebuttal expert evidence from the First Defendant, satisfied the burden on a balance of probabilities that the Plaintiff's signature was forged; therefore the Absolute Assignment is null and void.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that the Absolute Assignment dated 3 September 2013 is null and void; Plaintiff succeeds on main claim; damages not proven.

Orders

  • Absolute Assignment dated 3 September 2013 declared null and void
  • First Defendant to pay costs of RM5,000 to the Plaintiff