Can Letters Support A Will? Proving Testator Mental State.

The Will and The Testator’s State of Mind.

The case of Teoh Ying Rin v. Savatery Jayaraman recently concluded in Malaysia’s High Court and appeals court, concerning a dispute over a will after the death of the testator (the person making the will). The initial issue was that the respondent, Jayaraman, raised “suspicious circumstances” regarding the execution of the will, specifically related to how it was made and whether the family understood each other’s intentions.

The core of this case revolves around two key points: one, whether the absence of earlier drafts of the will (like a 2018 draft) invalidates the current one, and two, whether the lack of documentation on these issues proves the will itself is not credible. The court had to decide if Jayaraman’s challenge to the probate was valid—meaning, did he provide enough evidence that the timing or content of the will was suspect?

The testator founded a successful business, and his legacy included his daughter Ying Rin (and presumably Jayaraman too, as they are tied through inheritance). The court found that the respondent’s argument wasn’t strong enough to overturn the probate. Specifically, two letters were admitted as evidence—dated the same day as the will—showing the testator’s intention for his daughter to continue running the business and for profit-sharing among family members. These letters are crucial because they demonstrate the testator’s clear intent for Ying Rin to manage the company, alongside a desire for Jayaraman to “cooperate” and enjoy profits too.

The court decided that the absence of earlier drafts (like the 2018 will) should not invalidate the current one. Instead, they focused on whether the two letters, combined with testimony, prove beyond doubt that the testator was mentally sound and aware of his decisions when making the will. The judge in the High Court initially found that the appellant’s failure to produce the 2018 draft meant there were “suspicious circumstances” regarding how the will was made (specifically para 4, which deals with share distribution). However, the appeals court sided against this, stating that the absence of the earlier draft does not automatically invalidate the current one.

What does all this mean for everyday people? It’s a reminder that wills are rarely just about leaving assets; they’re often tied to family dynamics and unspoken tensions over money or roles in life. If you’re writing a will, don’t just focus on what you’re giving away—think about who might be left behind and how they might feel about it. A handwritten note or letter expressing your intent can carry more weight than legal documents alone, because courts often consider the “spirit” of a testator’s wishes when deciding inheritance matters. Finally, ensure mental capacity is addressed – if you’re ill or under stress, document that too, as it may affect how others perceive your decisions.

Memo

Case Summary: Teoh Ying Rin v. Savatery Jayaraman [2025] 3 MLRA146
From: Senior Counsel Sam
To: Junior Lawyers in the Firm.

1. Chronology of Facts (Old-School Style)

• 2019: Testator scribbles a will, para 4 giving hefty shares to the respondent. Suspicion: Was testator aware & approving?
• Same Day: Testator writes two letters (to both parties) explicitly stating, “This WILL BENEFIT YOU! I AM FULLY SURE!” signed/dated like the paper wills.
• High Court Drama 2023: Respondent challenges the will, claiming testator lacked capacity or fraud. They produce those letters—but High Court dismisses them as trickery; instead, they obsess over the missing 2018 WILL (never produced).
• Appellate Intervention: Higher court hears cries of “Mistake!”—screaming that trial judge ignored PROOF! The appellate court LOVES paperwork and sees those two letters IN EVERY WAY mattered.

2. Issues Raised

1. Did the testator KNOW they wrote para 4? Letters said YES, but did High Court ignore them like cheap paperweights?
2. Overplayed missing 2018 WILL vs. valid new evidence—did judges flip a coin instead of checking the letters?
3. Was “mental capacity” questioned properly—or was it just smokescreen to deny respondent her fair share?

3. Decision & Reasoning

• Outcome: Appeal SUCCEEDS! The High Court order (Jan 18, 2023) IS CANCELLED—set aside, for sure.
• Reasoning:
  • Lower courts DROPPED obvious evidence: letters showed testator’s KNOWLEDGE & APPROVAL. Judicial “appreciation” was AWFUL—they trusted shady missing-will obsession instead of the LOVE LETTERS!
  • Mental capacity challenge was a red herring—testator clearly signed on paper, letter by letter (pun intended).
  • Costs: Respondent must PAY RM130K to appellant with allocatur (“court approval” – like asking for a gold star first!).

4. Legal Provisions Followed

• Appellate Non-Interference Rule: Courts don’t second-guess unless THERE’S obvious error (Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan [2020] 6 MLRA 193). Lower court did not observe this—they made a BIG mistake!
• Extrinsic Evidence Rules: Letters are VALID evidence of testator intent—provided they’re NOT DISPROVED (Teoh Ying Rin v Savatery Jayaraman, 2025). High Court ignored them like unsolicited junk mail.
• Mental Capacity Statutes: Requires clear proof—not subtle hints in letters! Lower court went AWOL on this proper rule.

5. Decided Cases & Summaries

1. Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan [2020] 6 MLRA 193

   • Key Takeaway: Appellate courts play hard off unless there’s obvious error (no “we didn’t see this” excuses).

2. Gan Yook Chin [Predecessor] Case

   • Reiterated judicial appreciation mustn’t be skipped—like checking your shoelaces before leaving for court!

3. Teoh Ying Rin v Savatery Jayaraman [2025] 3 MLRA146

   • Landmark Decision: Letters (even cheap ones) can DISPEL suspicions if dated/unsigned by the testator; no need to produce earlier documents unless they’re LEGALLY REQUIRED!

6. Actionable Insights for Young’uns

• Always bring letters—ANY letters—as evidence of intent—they matter more than dusty old wills left at grandma’s house!
• *Avoid legal theatrics about missing docs; focus on new, credible evidence—even if it arrives in an envelope!
• *When challenging mental capacity, PROVE IT—not hint through poorly worded documents.

Final Word: In short—judge likes letters. Judge hates “missing 2018 WILL” baloney. And don’t forget to ask for allocatur before spending millions on court costs! Now go forth and win your cases! 🍀

Notes.

This article starts off with a description of the case. It then pivots to a memo from a fictional “senior counsel” to the junior lawyers of the firm about the case.

The case involves a dispute about a will. The person who wrote the will shows that he is aware of what he is doing, which is proven through letters that he himself wrote.

What this means: If you write a will, you could write a letter to accompany it – and help others see that you were in your proper mental state when you made the will. (A will could be challenged due to “non compos mentis”, i.e. that you’ve gone bonkers, or you weren’t 100% there when you wrote it.)

This piece was written to provide educational and entertainment value. Please consult with a lawyer before you take action on its contents. If you need a consultation on this matter – hit us up. We’ll be happy to speak with you (a reasonable fee applies).