1. ) DR.JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 2. ) JEGANATHAN A/L RATNAVALE 3. ) MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE 4. ) DR.JEYARATNAM A/L RATNAVALE 5. ) DR.MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 6. ) PANCHNATH A/L RATNAVALE 7. ) DR.JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (menuntut untuk da

1. ) DR.JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 2. ) JEGANATHAN A/L RATNAVALE 3. ) MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE 4. ) DR.JEYARATNAM A/L RATNAVALE 5. ) DR.MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE 6. ) PANCHNATH A/L RATNAVALE 7. ) DR.JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (menuntut untuk da

The application (Content 19) was allowed because this High Court, being of coordinate jurisdiction, has no power to set aside a regular, final and perfected judgment of another High Court that has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal unless the impugned judgment is shown to be null and void for illegality or lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to prove such illegality or lack of jurisdiction and their claim is further barred by res judicata and estoppel, therefore the writ and statement of claim against Defendants 1 and 3 lacked merit and were struck out; costs awarded RM8,000.

Citation
KA-22NCvC-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (beneficiary): DR. JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): JEGANATHAN A/L RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): DR. JEYARATNAM A/L RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): DR. MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): PANCANATH A/L RATNAVALE; Plaintiff (beneficiary): DR. JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (suing for Estet Annalakshmi, deceased); Defendant (claimed as Executor and Trustee of Estet Ratnavale): DR. M. MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM; Defendant (claimed as Executor and Trustee of Estet Ratnavale): SANDRASEGARA A/L MAHALINGAM; Defendant (representative/claimant): DR. M. MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM (claimed as representative for Thavamani Johnston and Sironmani Van Gorkam for Estet Mahalingam Ratnammal, deceased)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 December 2024
Case Number
KA-22NCvC-29-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim (probate/estate and Property Dispute) / Judgment on Interlocutory Application (notice of Application Under Order 14 A(1)/order 33 Allowed)
Outcome
Content 19 (defendants' application) allowed; plaintiffs' claims against Defendants 1 and 3 dismissed/struck out as having no merit
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Stare Decisis, Jurisdiction, Ex Debito Justitiae, Collateral Attack, Forfeiture
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Probate and Estates Property Law Preclusion (res Judicata/estoppel) Res Judicata Stare Decisis Jurisdiction Ex Debito Justitiae +2 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR. JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

JEGANATHAN A/L RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

MANORANI A/P RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

DR. JEYARATNAM A/L RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

DR. MAHALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

PANCANATH A/L RATNAVALE

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

DR. JEYALAKSHMI A/P RATNAVALE (suing for Estet Annalakshmi, deceased)

Plaintiff (beneficiary)

DR. M. MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM

Defendant (claimed as Executor and Trustee of Estet Ratnavale)

SANDRASEGARA A/L MAHALINGAM

Defendant (claimed as Executor and Trustee of Estet Ratnavale)

DR. M. MAHADEVAN A/L MAHALINGAM (claimed as representative for Thavamani Johnston and Sironmani Van Gorkam for Estet Mahalingam Ratnammal, deceased)

Defendant (representative/claimant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim (probate/estate and Property Dispute) / Judgment on Interlocutory Application (notice of Application Under Order 14 A(1)/order 33 Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a High Court of coordinate jurisdiction can set aside a final regular judgment of another High Court that has been affirmed on appeal
  2. 2 Whether the impugned judgment could be set aside ex debito justitiae on ground of illegality or lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' claim is barred by res judicata and estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

The application (Content 19) was allowed because this High Court, being of coordinate jurisdiction, has no power to set aside a regular, final and perfected judgment of another High Court that has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal unless the impugned judgment is shown to be null and void for illegality or lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs failed to prove such illegality or lack of jurisdiction and their claim is further barred by res judicata and estoppel, therefore the writ and statement of claim against Defendants 1 and 3 lacked merit and were struck out; costs awarded RM8,000.

Court Disposition

Content 19 (defendants' application) allowed; plaintiffs' claims against Defendants 1 and 3 dismissed/struck out as having no merit

Orders

  • Content 19 allowed by the High Court, Alor Setar
  • Writ of summons and Statement of Claim as against Defendants 1 and 3 struck out for lack of merit and being barred by res judicata/estoppel