somad bin Ahmad & 5 lagi Saadiah Binti Ahmad & 2 Lagi

somad bin Ahmad & 5 lagi Saadiah Binti Ahmad & 2 Lagi

The trial judge's acceptance of respondents' unchallenged testimony that they did not sign the Form DDA, combined with appellants' failure to call the Commissioner of Oaths who could have confirmed execution, justified drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) and negated the need for expert evidence; therefore the Distribution Order was set aside and the High Court's decision was affirmed on appeal.

Citation
P-02(NCVC)(W)-1184-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: SA'ADIAH BINTI AHMAD; Appellant: CHE BEDAH BINTI AHMAD; Appellant: CHE SOOM BINTI ISMAIL; Respondent: SO'MAD BIN AHMAD; Respondent: SAMSUDIN BIN AHMAD; Respondent: ROHANI BINTI AHMAD; Respondent: MASITOH BINTI AHMAD; Respondent: AMRAN BIN AHMAD; Respondent: OMAR BIN AHMAD (estate)
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 October 2018
Case Number
P-02(NCVC)(W)-1184-06/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / On Appeal From High Court (judgment Dated 15 May 2018)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Distribution Order, Forgery of Signatures, Adverse Inference, Non Est Factum, Burden of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Inheritance Land Law Evidence Civil Procedure Distribution Order Forgery of Signatures Adverse Inference Non Est Factum +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SA'ADIAH BINTI AHMAD

Appellant

CHE BEDAH BINTI AHMAD

Appellant

CHE SOOM BINTI ISMAIL

Appellant

SO'MAD BIN AHMAD

Respondent

SAMSUDIN BIN AHMAD

Respondent

ROHANI BINTI AHMAD

Respondent

MASITOH BINTI AHMAD

Respondent

AMRAN BIN AHMAD

Respondent

OMAR BIN AHMAD (estate)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / On Appeal From High Court (judgment Dated 15 May 2018)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents proved on balance of probability that their signatures on Form DDA were forged
  2. 2 Whether adverse inference under s.114(g) Evidence Act 1950 could be drawn against appellants for failing to call the Commissioner of Oaths K.O. Ellangkovan

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's acceptance of respondents' unchallenged testimony that they did not sign the Form DDA, combined with appellants' failure to call the Commissioner of Oaths who could have confirmed execution, justified drawing an adverse inference under s.114(g) and negated the need for expert evidence; therefore the Distribution Order was set aside and the High Court's decision was affirmed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court dated 15 May 2018 affirmed