It has come to this!

It always gives a funny feeling at the back of the throat when we hear of families going for each others' throat over family matters, what more if it is over property and worldly matters. Three recent events that struck a familiar chord were published in Malaysian newspapers recently. The first involved the case of the infidelous Daphne Iking and her treacherous bedroom activities. See, I can only remember the starlet's name, not her husband and her boyfriend. For those in the dark about this legal wrangle, the boyfriend was charged under an old law for enticing a married woman. During the court proceedings, which was packed with curious onlookers, just to add spice to their mundane lives. Anyway, this was soap opera in real life as many dirty linens were washed unashamedly in the roving eyes of the public. At the end of the day, the newspapers had brisk sales, Daphne became a bigger household name, the two blokes were taken a royal ride (who later reconciled) and the daughter of the union was supported by a father whose DNA was not in his daughter's chromosome.
The second one involved the forever sad looking Bi-Anne and her father. Bi-Anne loves her father so much that she was once quoted as saying, "My mother took care of me in the womb for 9 months, but my father has been taking care of me for 10 years since.!" The papers love to publish the sad eyed Bi-Anne and her equally forlorn father.
The third and final episode is the suit filed by a family against the trustee who was the deceased's brother over a RM6 million land. At the end, the victors were posing happily proclaiming that justice had prevailed after 38 years. And the other end, the down trotten 81 year man with crutches is seen walking alone vowing to appeal the court's decision to fatten the lawyers' coffers. And the lawyers' reputation and demand would increase as they would say they acted in the best interest of their client and to ensure the justice was upheld. Yeah, sure!

GEORGE TOWN: Well-known psychiatrist Tan Sri Dr M. Mahadevan has lost the “ownership” of four plots of land worth about RM6mil at Jalan Scotland in a family tussle dating back 38 years. High Court Judge Datuk Abdul Halim Aman ruled yesterday that the seven defendants, who were Mahadevan’s nephews, nieces and sisters-in-law were the rightful ow-ners of the plots. The defendants are the late V. Annalakshmi, Fam Kim Moy, 77, Dr R. Jeyalakshmi, 58, R. Jeganathan, 54, Major Dr R. Jeyaratnam, 52, R. Pan-chanath, 46, and Dr R. Mahalak-shmi, 51. Dr Mahadevan, 82, is the younger brother of the late M. Ratnavale, an assistant controller of foreign exc-hange in the Prime Minister’s Dep-artment, who retired in 1964 and later became a businessman. The defendants are Ratnavale’s two wives (Annalakshmi and Fam Kim Moy) and their five children. Abdul Halim said the plaintiff’s claim for vacant possession of a house built on No. 10, Taman Scot-land (lot 747) were of no basis and ought to be dismissed with costs. He said the defendant’s counter claim was allowed. The defendant’s lawyer K. Govin-daraju had argued that the five lots of land No. 743, 744, 745, 746 and 747 belonged at all times to Rat-navale and Ratnavale’s mother, the late M. Ratnammal, who was holding it as trustee for him (Ratnavale).

Justice served

Govindaraju said although Dr Mahadevan knew that the plots were held in trust, he had fraudulently transferred the plots to himself from his mother Ratnammal. “Lot 746 was sold to a relative, and therefore the defendants are not making any claims to that lot,” he added. Addul Halim further ruled that the defendants had successfully proved their case against the plaintiff. “I rule that the plaintiff is a trustee for lots 743, 744, 745 and 747 and the defendants are beneficiaries of the residuary estate of Ratnavale until Letters of Administration of the estate are issued,” he said. He said the defendants claim for damages profits was dismissed. In his claim filed in 1998, Dr Mahadevan had claimed the defendant’s were trespassers at one of his houses built on lot 747, Taman Scotland and sought vacant possession and damages. 

Vows to return  

The defendants then counter claimed that they had been staying at the house since 1972, and that Dr Mahadevan had fraudulently transferred the land without their knowledge in 1981. They sought the return of the property. Dr Mahadevan’s counsel Raam Kumar said his client would appeal. Some of the defendants who were present in the court hugged each other and shed tears of joy. Dr Mahalakshmi told reporters outside the court that they were happy they have received justice after 38 years. “We were asked to vacate the property which was rightfully ours,” she added.