Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of will

Legal area

Court

11 Jun 2025

Ho Hee Yik 1. ) TEE YEN CHONG 2. ) TEE SAY HONG

Citation

JA-22NCvC-144-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-144-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court accepted the handwriting expert that the signature on the purported will was of different authorship and the defendants failed to produce a necessary attesting witness, inviting an adverse inference; the will therefore failed statutory attestation requirements and is invalid. The court found a customary marriage between the deceaseds was proven. Consequently the deceased died intestate and the plaintiff, as administrator of the deceased husband, is entitled to obtain letters of administration to administer the deceased wife's estate in accordance with the Distribution Act 1958.
24 Apr 2025

PATMINDERJIT SINGH RUBA PENCELAH SHARIN KAUR RUBA A/P GURUBACHAN SINGH PENSITASI Bhagwant Kaur A/p Isher Singh

Citation

BA-32NCvC-963-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-32NCvC-963-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Where a caveator raises serious allegations impeaching a will but fails to commence formal contentious probate proceedings or file a citation and does not substantiate allegations with evidence, the court will exercise its discretion under Order 71 rule 38 to dispose of the matter summarily and may grant probate if the propounder's evidence remains unrebutted.
6 Mar 2025

GLENN FAUSTINN ASIDAZ Selvi @ Kupamah A/p Subramaniam (Disaman dalam kapasiti Pentadbir dan Pemegang Amanah Harta Pusaka Sundarasamy A/L Arockiasamy (No.K/P: 601022-08-6719/ 6068728)( si mati)

Citation

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-507-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found, on the balance of probabilities and supported by comparisons with admitted genuine signatures and the defendant's own admissions, that signatures on the transfer documents were not the deceased's and were forged; conversely the will dated 11.8.2004 was validly executed and proved by attesting witness Ganesan and by the defendant's admission as to the testator's signature. Consequently the transfer(s) were void for fraud/forgery, the earlier grant of administration to Selvi was cancelled, and probate and declaration of sole executor/beneficiary were granted to Glenn with orders to…
3 Dec 2024

SIVASHANGIRI A/P R SEKAR SUNTHARARAJU A/L PACHAYAPPAN

Citation

KA-22NCvC-43-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

KA-22NCvC-43-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the evidence of the solicitor who prepared the 18.12.2019 will, the attesting witness and the hospital doctor's contemporaneous letter that the deceased had capacity and executed the 18.12.2019 will; therefore the 18.12.2019 will is the valid last will which revoked earlier wills, the probate obtained by defendant based on the 26.8.2019 document is invalid and is set aside, and plaintiff is entitled to apply as executor and to remedies including injunction, RM30,000 general damages, costs RM30,000 and interest at 5% per annum.
30 Jul 2024

1. ) Maruthaveeran A/l Muruvan @ Murugan 2. ) Gunaselan A/l Suppiah 3. ) THEIVANI A/P MARUTHAMUTHU 4. ) AMANI A/P MARUTHAMUTHU 5. ) MAIAVALHANAN A/L MARUTHAMUTHU 6. ) PARAMASWARY A/P MARUTHAMUTHU PUKAZENDIRAN A/L MARUTHAMUTHU

Citation

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1229-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

B-02(NCvC)(W)-1229-07/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The appeal is dismissed and the High Court judgment affirmed because the appellants failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to obtain a citation under Order 72 r.7 ROC 2012, which is fatal to a probate action commenced by writ; alternatively on merits the will was valid, testamentary capacity existed and appellants failed to prove undue influence or suspicious circumstances, and costs of RM15,000 were awarded to respondent.
19 Jun 2024

WONG CHEE WAH WONG CHEE SEONG

Citation

AA-22NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-65-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because the Plaintiff demonstrated due diligence in service (including substituted service permitted by the court), the substituted service complied with the order, and the Defendant failed to establish a bona fide, meritorious defence raising serious issues to justify setting aside a regular default judgment; accordingly the default judgment and its substantive orders (including declaration of the Will's invalidity and revocation of probate) stand.
19 Jun 2024

KOK AH HWOI @ KOK AH HOI 1. ) COLUM AIWAH MCNAMARA 2. ) LEE SUAN CHOO

Citation

BA-22NCvC-111-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-111-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court exercised its discretion to extend time under Order 20 r.9 and allowed the late filing to effect paragraph 29.2 because the amendment had previously been ordered and the defendants had not objected initially; conversely, the court refused leave to amend paragraphs 13, 14 and 27.1 because the proposed change to the date of execution of the will was a late, material alteration central to the dispute, would prejudice the defendants at trial in a way not compensable by costs, and was therefore properly denied under Order 20 r.5(1).
27 Dec 2023

1. ) WON HAN CHAI 2. ) WON HANG HOO 1. ) ON A WAN @ WAN HAN CHUAN 2. ) WON ENG SOON

Citation

DA-22NCvC-29-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

DA-22NCvC-29-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court concluded the prior judgment (Kes No.1) on a closely related will gave rise to res judicata on the core issues; medical and other evidence established the deceased lacked testamentary capacity during the relevant period, the propounder failed to prove capacity or rebut suspicious circumstances and possible undue influence, and plaintiffs had sufficiently complied with affidavit-of-scripts requirements; accordingly the three challenged wills were void, the deceased died intestate and the plaintiffs were appointed administrators with costs awarded.
15 Nov 2023

TAN SENG GUAN 1. ) TAN BEE KEOW 2. ) Tan Bee Keow Di Dalam Kapasitinya Sebagai Wasi Dan Pemegang Amanah Kepada Harta Pusaka Si Mati, Tan Kok Bin (No. K/p: 410417-01-5251) Yang Dinamakan Di Dalam Wasiat Bertulis Yang Didakwa Wasiat Dan Testa

Citation

JA-22NCvC-90-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-90-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application (Lampiran 7) dismissed because the proposed terms were coercive and imposed an ultimatum forcing the plaintiff into an administrative role not sought in his pleadings, included onerous conditions (withdrawal of caveats, mandatory full accounts) and would not resolve the core substantive disputes; therefore the court declined to exercise its discretion under O.72 r.15 to approve the package.
5 May 2023

1. ) Thye Kong Yoon (Sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Thye Yin (simati)) 2. ) Tai Kim Sin (Sebagai Pentadbir kepada Harta Pusaka Tai New Chye (simati)) 3. ) Thye Fei Foong 4. ) Thye Fue Foong 5. ) Thye Chee Keong 1. ) Tai Shoo 2. ) Tai

Citation

CB-22NCvC-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-22NCvC-23-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to amend was dismissed because the proposed amendments introduced a new issue (validity of the 1975 will and a declaratory claim to title) that did not arise from the plaintiffs' original pleadings or their amendment, would change the character of the suit and therefore failed the Yamaha Motor test; the defendants' application was not permissible and caused unjustifiable prejudice.