Sisshaane Vasuthevan v Ghana Moorthy A/L Muthiah (BA-22NCvC-393-10/2024)

SISSHAANE VASUTHEVAN (No. K/P: 011127-87-0016)

RISHAANIE (No. K/P: 040115-14-1118)

SUMITRA DEWI A/P R PARAMARAJAH (No. K/P: 730530-14-5130) (Bertindak sebagai wakil litigasi bagi Suvvaashni Vasuthevan (No. K/P: 071119-14-0704)) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF

GHANA MOORTHY A/L MUTHIAH (No. K/P: 620527-10-6213)

GHANA MOORTHY A/L MUTHIAH (No. K/P: 620527-10-6213) (Sebagai Pentadbir bagi Harta Pusaka Vasuthevan a/l N. Muthiah) …DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN 26/09/2025 16:56:09 BA-22NCvC-393-10/2024 Kand. 58

The Plaintiffs applied to have several questions of law determined under Order 14A and/or Order 33 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“Enclosure 35”). They argued that the determination of those questions will decide or substantially dispose of the cause or matter without the need for a trial.

The action itself is a contentious probate action by the beneficiaries of the estate of Vasuthevan a/l N. Muthiah (deceased) against the Administrator of the said estate for his removal, cancellation of the grant and an account of the estate intermeddled with by the Defendant (referred to in the singular in this Judgment).

The Defendant, who is the Administrator of the estate, is accused of applying fraudulently to have himself appointed by claiming that he is a creditor of the estate in Ipoh High Court Originating Summons No.: AA-31NCvC-3-01/2022 under Sections 22 and 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959.

The Defendant allegedly did so without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs, who are the children of the deceased. The Defendant is the deceased’s brother who claims that he had purchased the deceased’s 1/3rd share in three (3) pieces of land (“Land”) for RM190,000.00, which consideration is already paid to the deceased before be passed.

The questions framed by the Plaintiffs for determination are as follows: a) Whether the Plaintiffs are the legitimate biological children and/or rightful heirs to the estate of the deceased, Vasuthevan a/l N. Muthiah (“the Deceased”) under Section 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 read together with Order 71 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Section 6 of the Distribution Act 1958; b) Whether the Plaintiffs, as legitimate biological children, are entitled to obtain the Letters of Administration over the Deceased’s estate under Section 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 read together with Order 71 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012; c) If the Plaintiffs are the legitimate biological children and/or rightful heirs to the Deceased’s estate and are entitled to obtain the Letters of Administration, whether the Letters of Administration dated 14-2-2022 obtained to administer the Deceased’s estate issued by the Ipoh High Court under Originating Summons No. AA-31NCvC-3-01/2022 to the Defendant (“the Grant”) is invalid and void; d) If the said Grant is invalid and void, whether an injunction should be ordered against the Defendant to restrain them from continuing to act as an Administrator of the Deceased’s estate; and e) If the Grant is invalid and void, whether an order should be made against the Defendant to render accounts for all transactions carried out while acting as an Administrator of the Deceased’s estate.

The application was dismissed because questions (a) and (b) above are not disputed, and there were insufficient facts agreed between the parties to allow the Court to make any findings on questions (c), (d) and (e).

Questions (c), (d) and (e) spell out the remedies sought by the Plaintiffs if they can prove the substantive question of fraud alleged against the Defendant in the action, which the Defendant is disputing on the following grounds: a) The Deceased passed away on 14-1-2020 in England before his agreement with the Deceased for the sale and transfer of the Land could be fully implemented because the titles were being held by a third party who refused to surrender it. b) The Defendant stands as a creditor of the estate, having paid RM190,000.00 to the Deceased, and only sought Letters of Administration in that capacity and only in respect of the Land. The 1st Plaintiff has full knowledge of and consented to this course of action because of trust issues between the 1st Plaintiff and her mother, who was divorced from the Deceased.

The facts show that the Plaintiffs did not apply for Letters of Administration promptly after the death of the Deceased on 14- 1-2020, and as noted, the Defendant had applied under Sections 22 and 30 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959, allegedly with the consent of the 1st Plaintiff. Section 22 provides that:

“Letters of administration of trust property Where a person dies, leaving property in which he had no beneficial interest on his own account, and does not leave a representative who is able and willing to act, letters of administration, limited to that property, may be granted to the person beneficially interested in the property, or to some other person on his behalf.”

It would appear that the Plaintiffs’ status as the lawful biological children of the Deceased does not automatically disqualify the Defendant from applying for Letters of Administration. The Plaintiffs also did not ask the question whether, regardless of the factual disputes, the Defendant is ipso facto fraudulent. In fact, they agree that the Defendant’s claim to the Land is also an issue pleaded for determination here.

There being disputes of facts whether the 1st Plaintiff had consented to the Defendant’s actions and ultimately, as to the competing claims now made by the estate and the Defendant on the Land, this Court was unable to make the finding that the Defendant was fraudulent without hearing oral evidence at trial. Accordingly, the cause or matter cannot be decided.

The trial having already been set down for 25, 26, 28 and 29 May 2026, this Court dismissed Enclosure 35 with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to allocator. Bertarikh : 26 September 2025 SGD ELAINE YAP CHIN GAIK PESURUHJAYA KEHAKIMAN MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA SHAH ALAM Peguam bagi pihak Plaintif: Pavithra a/p Vijaya Kumar (Messrs Ghazi & Lim) Peguam bagi pihak Defendan: Adiishyiah a/p Tangarajoo (Messrs M Manoharan & Co.)