GOMATHY A/P VIJAYAN v 1. ) ELANKOVAN A/L RUKMINIE @ RAMANATHI 2. ) SELVANAYAGI A/P CHILLAYAH

pa-22ncvc-117-06-2021 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 23 June 2025 • PA-22NCvC-117-06/2021 • 19 min read

2 cases cited (0 SG, 2 foreign)

Catchwords

In Siaw Kim Seong V. Siew Swee Yin & Anor [2008] 5 CLJ 441, the Court of Appeal [6]“…But in this case you do not have to be an expert to see for yourself that the signature supposed to be of the Plaintiff appearing on the memorandum of transfer and the assignment do not match even upon a cursory visual examination. In fact, the signature said to be that of the Plaintiff on the assignment is manifestly different from that appearing on the memorandum of transfer. And both signatures are wholly different from the Plaintiff's admitted signature appearing on the agreement he had with Chung. In our judgment, the learned judge could have - and on the facts of this case he should have - acted under s. 73(1) of the Evidence Act 1950. I also reminded myself of the cautionary

Judges (1)

Rozana binti Ali Yusoff Delivered

Counsel (5)

Arnold Andrew & Co Firm Preakas & Partners Firm Adeline Loh Counsel Defendant Balasingham Arasabalan Counsel Plaintiff Sarrenya a/p Santhakumar Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (3)

Elankovan a/l Rukminie @ Ramanathi Defendant Gomathy a/p Vijayan Plaintiff Selvanayagi a/p Chillayah Defendant

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

National Land Code (Cap 828)

Cases Cited (2)

MY (2)

[2008] 5 CLJ 441 [2017] 5 CLJ 418

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (pa-22ncvc-117-06-2021)