Manogaran a/l Singraveloo & Ors v Amanah Raya Berhad & Anor

Appellant(s):

• Manogaran A/L Singraveloo
• Kamalavani A/P Singaravellu
• Ratha Singaraveloo Joseph
• Soosila A/P Singaraveloo

Respondent(s):

• Amanah Raya Berhad
• Mohd Shan Bin Abdullah

• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz
• YA Datin Paduka Evrol Mariette Peters

• The deceased passed away in 2013 leaving 10 children; the appellants (four children) initially sought letters of administration on intestacy until the second respondent produced a 2011 Will naming himself sole beneficiary.
• The appellants later discovered a 1976 Will (prepared by lawyers, dividing the estate equally among all children) and challenged the validity of the 2011 Will (prepared by the first respondent, a trust corporation, and naming the second respondent as sole beneficiary) on grounds of language incomprehension, lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence and forgery.
• After a 13-day trial, the High Court upheld the 2011 Will as validly executed under the Wills Act 1959, dismissed the appellants' claims, and allowed the second respondent's counterclaim (including cancellation of caveats).

• Whether the propounders of the 2011 Will discharged the legal burden of proving testamentary capacity and the deceased's knowledge and approval of its contents, particularly given her advanced age and alleged language limitations.
• Whether the trial judge erred by assuming (rather than finding on evidence) that the deceased understood English, and whether suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the 2011 Will (including the second respondent's active role in its preparation as sole beneficiary) were adequately dispelled by the propounders.
• Whether the appellate court could and should intervene given the trial judge's factual findings, and whether the "golden rule" (medical practitioner's assessment for elderly/infirm testators) applied.

• By majority, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by assuming, without proper evidentiary foundation, that the deceased understood English, contrary to the principle that a court must decide on proven facts and not speculation or conjecture.
• The Court found several unaddressed suspicious circumstances, including the second respondent's active involvement in preparing the will naming himself sole beneficiary, absence of independent legal advice, failure to disclose the existence of the 1976 Will, inconsistent witness testimony on the language used, and the second respondent's evasive conduct in responding to inquiries about the will — none of which were affirmatively dispelled by the respondents as required by Barry v Butlin and related authorities.
• The appeal was allowed, the 2011 Will was set aside, the 1976 Will was restored as the deceased's last valid will, the second respondent's counterclaim was dismissed, and consequential orders (including accounting for the estate and damages) were granted in favour of the appellants, with costs of RM40,000 awarded against each respondent.