JUDGE’S RULING
At the next HDB meeting, Justice Thean determined that Mdm Che’som understood the execution papers, which contradicted her accusations of deception and error.
She claimed that there were two meetings with HDB where an HDB officer gave explanations in Malay, but that she was not persuaded by Mdm Che’som, adding that there were also two meetings where she and another HDB official spoke.
Mdm Che’som herself accepted in cross-examination that , vital information, including the nature of the transport, the purpose of the execution meeting and the economic plan, were relayed to her in Malay, Justice Thean added.
The determine said,” I am so satisfied that for a description had been made at the next HDB conference, and that Mdm Che’som was ready enough to comprehend what was explained to her.”
Her decision was backed up by the evidence of a family companion,  , Mdm Norlina Zainol, who was called as a testimony by Mdm Ain.
In her created speech, Mdm Norlina testified that during an experience in 2018,  , Mdm Che’som had told her and her mother , that she was relieved her daughter had taken over the loan of the house and Mdm Ain was then a co-owner.
The judge determined that the witness and her evidence were reputable despite Mdm Che’som’s lawyer’s efforts to emphasize contradictions in Mdm Norlina’s accounts, such as the location of the meeting and a divergent interpretation of Malay language.
She had noted the close relation between the testimony, and Mdm Che’som and her family, and that , Mdm Che’som did not dispute the existence of nor offer a unique version of the conversation.  ,
” Mdm Norlina’s testimony contributes to my finding that Mdm Che’som has not proven that she did not understand what was signed” , , Justice Thean said.
She even noted that Mdm Che’som’s written comments and during cross-examination were not regular.
Justice Thean pointed out that the plaintiff, in her written speech, did not mention her father’s claimed asthma attacks had occurred during the discussions with HDB.
These are plastic facts, in my opinion, that a sensible person would have put in the petition to support her claim that undermined the accuracy of her account.
The prosecutor added that Mr. Yusope’s asthma attack may occur during both HDB meetings while the Malay officer was presenting the transaction at the time.
” Despite this accident of stress, neither affair was detailed in Mdm Che’som’s testimonies”, Justice Thean said.
As for Mdm Che’som’s another contestations, the prosecutor dismissed there had been any deception by Mdm Ain, as the original could , certainly prove that she did not understand what was being signed.
Justice Thean also argued that the structure required that Mdm Ain reside with her kids, take care of them, and own their mutual relatives assets.
The details were likewise inappropriate for Mdm Che’som to show on the balance of probabilities that she was excessively influenced, she added, prompting her to reach out the defendant’s state.