NOR SYAZANA BINTI JAMALUDDIN A159247 FIRM 7

[OPINION EVIDENCE]
SEMBAGAVALLY MURUGASON v TEE SENG HOCK [2019] MLRHU 982
High Court Malaya, Johor Bahru

1. Facts:
The plaintiff, a vendor, and defendant, a purchaser had signed the SPA and form 14A for
the sale of the Land. On 27th November 2017, the defendant redeemed the property from
the charge, Maybank Bhd and on 2nd January 218, the Land was registered under the
defendant’s name. The plaintiff claimed that after signing the SPA, no payments were
forthcoming and further lodged a police report, claiming that her signatures were forged
on certain documents to facilitate the transfer of the land to the defendant. The documents
that the plaintiff disputed signing are; Friendly Loan Agreement, Deed of Trust, Power of
Attorney, Letter acknowledging receipt, Letter acknowledging husband to collect cheque
and Letter authorising Messrs Chiong & Partners to proceed with redemption of property.

2. Issue:
Whether the opinion evidence of the plaintiff’s husband is sufficient to testify the validity
of the signature under Section 47 of Evidence Act 1950?

3. Plaintiff’s Submission:
The plaintiff did not adduce any independent evidence to prove that her signatures were
forged, except for the testimony of her husband, SP2. SP2 testified to the court that the
signature on the documents are different from her wife’s signature and further contended
that the signatures were forged. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the case of Boonsoom
Boonyanit v Adorna Properties and submitted that it is not necessary for the plaintiff to
call witness to testify to her signatures, and that her evidence alone would suffice.

4. Defendant’s Submission:
The defendant produced his first witness, SD1, who gave direct evidence of the signing.
She claimed that she attended personally to the signing by the plaintiff of the other
documents. Counsel relied on the case of Teoh Ah Cha @ Teoh Sik Sen & Ors v Huatson
Sdn Bhd & Ors which propounded the principle that, a person’s signature can be
recognised or identified by the writer himself or by someone who had witnessed the
signing of the signature. With regards to the testimony given by the plaintiff witness, SP2,
counsel for defendant argued that the evidence of SP2 regarding the signature of the
plaintiff should be disregarded since he is not an expert, as provided for in Section 45 of
Evidence Act 1950.
5. Judgement:
The plaintiff is disallowed from claiming specific performance of such agreement.

6. Reason for Judgement:

With regards to the defendant’s argument that the evidence given by SP2 should be
disregarded as he is not an expert under section 45, the court if of the view that the
opinion evidence of an expert witness via section 45 is not the only method of proving or
disputing signatures. In giving opinion evidence on handwriting, court may accept the
evidence of persons acquainted with the person whose handwriting is being disputed, as
elucidated by the Federal Court in Letchumanan Chettiar Alagappan v Secure Plantation
Sdn Bhd, and also was provided under section 47 of the same act. A ‘person acquainted’
is defined in the explanation to section 47, which reads:
A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has
seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by
that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and
addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, document
purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him.

It is undisputable that the plaintiff’s husband had meet the requirement of a ‘person
acquainted’ as defined in the explanation to section 47. However, the court is of the view
that although SP2 was a person acquainted with the plaintiff’s signature, his evidence
carries very little weight as he only provided a bare denial and did not even attempt to
explain why the signatures were found on the document. Hence, his credibility was
compromised.