Jayandran A/l Subramaniam (Sebagai Wasi Bagi Harta-pesaka Ramaney A/l Ramu (No. Kp: 460514-10-5107), Simati) v 1. ) RAJAPRAKASH A/L RAGHAVAN 2. ) POOVARAJA A/L RAGHAVAN 3. ) VINOTHINI A/P RAGHAVAN

b-02ncvcw-134-01-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 26 October 2025 • B-02(NCvC)(W)-134-01/2024 • 24 min read
20 cases cited (0 SG, 20 foreign)

Catchwords

Law of Evidence – Documentary evidence v Oral evidence – Dispute between parties over lands purchased more 50 years ago – Whether lands were to be divided equally between them – Whether there was insufficient judicial appreciation of the documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff – Whether undue weight had been placed on oral testimony of the Defendants in light of contemporaneous documents – Whether there was a misdirection in the application of the burden and standard of proof on the Parties.

Practice Areas

Law of Evidence

Judges (3)

Collin Lawrence Sequerah Coram Evrol Mariette Peters Delivered Faizah binti Jamaludin Coram

Counsel (5)

Alexander & Partners Firm Izwan Mazniza Kamil & Associates Firm Jude Alexander a/l I Arulandu Counsel Appellant Mohammad Izwan bin Azmi Counsel Respondent Muhammad Amir Syazwan bin Ahmad Fauzy Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

Jayandran a/l Subramaniam, Simati) Appellant Poovaraja a/l Raghavan Respondent Rajaprakash a/l Raghavan Respondent Vinothini a/p Raghavan Respondent

Case Significance

Jayandran A/l Subramaniam (Sebagai Wasi Bagi Harta-pesaka Ramaney A/l Ramu (N... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated October 26, 2025 (citation: b-02ncvcw-134-01-2024). <p>The executor of an estate disputed the division of land purchased jointly approximately 50 years ago by two friends, with only one registered as proprietor. The Court of Appeal found the High Court had insufficiently appreciated documentary evidence, placed undue weight on oral testimony, and misdirected the burden and standard of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the defendants' beneficial interest was ordered to be sold to the plaintiff at market value within six months.</p> The panel comprised Collin Lawrence Sequerah, Evrol Mariette Peters and Faizah binti Jamaludin, with Evrol Mariette Peters delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Jude Alexander a/l I Arulandu (counsel for appellant), Mohammad Izwan bin Azmi (counsel for respondent), Muhammad Amir Syazwan bin Ahmad Fauzy (counsel for respondent).

Summary

The executor of an estate disputed the division of land purchased jointly approximately 50 years ago by two friends, with only one registered as proprietor. The Court of Appeal found the High Court had insufficiently appreciated documentary evidence, placed undue weight on oral testimony, and misdirected the burden and standard of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the defendants' beneficial interest was ordered to be sold to the plaintiff at market value within six months.

What was the outcome of Jayandran A/l Subramaniam (Sebagai Wasi Bagi Harta-pesaka Ramaney A/l Ramu (N...?

<p>The executor of an estate disputed the division of land purchased jointly approximately 50 years ago by two friends, with only one registered as pr...

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act
s 103 s 60 s 73A(2)
Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (20)

UK (1)
[1947] AC 487
MY (19)
[1984] 2 MLJ 165 [1989] 1 MLJ 35 [1996] 2 MLJ 517 [1996] 3 CLJ 163 [1998] 2 CLJ 909 [1998] 2 MLJ 463 [2001] 2 CLJ 474 [2001] 6 CLJ 104 [2003] 2 MLJ 97 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2008] 2 MLJ 87 [2009] 6 MLJ 1 [2010] 3 MLJ 509 [2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2012] 4 MLJ 149 [2013] 4 MLJ 693 [2017] 3 MLJ 763 [2020] 8 CLJ 319 [2022] 1 CLJ 491