BRIEF FACTS:

• One Nantha Kumaran a/l Saravanamuthu (“the Deceased”) executed his last will and testament on 29.4.2019 (“the Will”). The Deceased then passed away on 7.6.2019.
  
  
• The Appellant, Teoh Ying Rin (“Ying Rin”) was appointed as the executor and trustee of the Will. Ying Rin therefore applied for a Grant of Probate to enable her to manage the Deceased’s estate.
  
  
• However, the Respondent, Savatery a/p Jayamaran who is the Deceased’s wife (“the Wife”) contested Ying Rin’s application.
  
  
• The Wife claimed that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will.
  
  
• The High Court, in favour of the Wife, decided that the Will is null and void and of no effect.

THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC decided that there are suspicious facts surrounding the making of the Will, mainly, Ying Rin played a prominent role in preparing, making and executing the Will and Ying Rin would receive substantial benefits from it.
  
  
• Secondly, the HC decided that Ying Rin failed to produce the previous 2 wills of the Deceased which were purportedly made by Ying Rin as well.
  
  
• Therefore, the HC saw that Ying Rin had failed to remove those suspicious circumstances.
  
  
• Ying Rin then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL (COA)

• Firstly, the COA draws out the differences between (a) testamentary capacity, and (b) knowledge and approval of the contents of the will.
  
  
• (a) Testamentary capacity refers to the Deceased mental ability to execute the Will such as insane delusion. Meanwhile, (b) Knowledge and approval refers to the fact that the content of the will must express the mind of the Deceased.
  
  
• If the Deceased (a) testamentary capacity is in question, the whole Will is deemed invalid.
  
  
• However, if the Deceased (b) knowledge and approval of the contents of the Will is the one in question, only the affected part will be invalid.
  
  
• In this case, the Wife expressly stated that she is contesting on the Deceased’s (b) knowledge and approval of the contents of the Will.
  
  
• Secondly, the COA decided that the absence of the previous 2 wills is not important to show the Deceased’s knowledge and approval. Those wills would only show the difference in the percentage of shares bequeathed to the Wife and Ying Rin.
  
  
• The Deceased’s intention in those wills is also no longer relevant. The previous 2 wills are only important if the case here concerns the forgery of Will.
  
  
• Thirdly, the COA found that the 2 letters sent by the Deceased to Yin Ring and Wife are credible to prove the Deceased’s knowledge and approval of the contents of the Will.
  
  
• Both the letters and the Will are dated the same, showing the Deceased’s certainties in his knowledge and approval.
  
  
• In the COA’s words: “The said letters speaks volume of the testator’s (Deceased) wishes.”
  
  
• Fourthly, the 2 witnesses who were called can only prove that it was indeed the Deceased who signed the Will. They are not to prove the Deceased was aware of the Will’s content.
  
  
• Lastly, the COA does not find any evidence that could show there was undue influence or that the Deceased was coerced into executing the Will.
  
  
• Therefore, the COA set aside the HC’s order, in favour of Ying Rin.