The plaintiffs were the biological children of the deceased, who had died on 10 April 1979. The wife of the deceased had also passed away on 25 June 2012. The deceased was his parents' only son, and his parents, the plaintiffs' grandparents, had passed away in 1980 and 1992. The deceased had left behind eight parcels of land, including:
- a house;
- four rice paddies, upon one of which was a shophouse, built by the second co-defendant and purchased by the first co-defendant, and a restaurant;
- two durian plantations; and
- another parcel of land.
The defendant, who was the plaintiffs' great uncle (younger brother of their deceased grandmother), controlled all eight parcels of land because, at the time of the death of the deceased, the plaintiffs were still in primary school (sekolah dasar). The plaintiffs submitted that the defendant was not a legitimate beneficiary because the deceased was the sole son of the original owner of all eight parcels of land, and they were his children. Furthermore, the first and second co-defendants enjoyed no right of inheritance over the rice paddy with the shophouse and restaurant as the plaintiffs had never sold to either of them the land or any part thereof. Moreover, the first co-defendant knew the right owner of the land, and knew that the plaintiffs were the children of the deceased.
The plaintiffs, therefore, sought a determination from the court that they were the true owners of the eight parcels of land. The defendant and two co-defendants refuted the plaintiffs' submissions, submitting that the house had actually belonged to the defendant's father, and that the the rice paddy on which the shophouse and restaurant were situated had been inherited by the defendant and first co-defendant, who had lawfully sold a part thereof to the second co-defendant. The defendant and two co-defendants also submitted that they had no connection whatsoever to the other parcels of land.
In dismissing the plaintiffs' application, the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish their claim to the relevant parcels of land. The court also ordered the court bailiff to lift the caveat over the relevant parcels of land.