Ramlakhan et Al v Persad et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Rampersad, J. |
| Judgment Date | 11 January 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2012 HC 8 |
| Docket Number | CV 3577 of 2007 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 11 January 2012 |
High Court
Rampersad, J.
CV 3577 of 2007
Mr. Kelvin Ramkissoon for the claimants.
Mr. Arthur Douglas for the defendants.
Real property - Ownership — Equitable interest — Whether claimants were bare licensees with consent.
In this matter, the claimants have brought proceedings against the defendants to assert a proprietary claim to a property which is registered in the name of the defendants on the basis of certain promises allegedly made to the claimants by the defendants' predecessors in title.
On 11 January 2012, this court dismissed the claimants' claim and these are the reasons for doing so.
The claimants say that the first named claimant has been living on the subject property since 1965 and that the second named claimant, who was sixty-nine (69) years of age when the statement of case was filed, has lived in the subject property for his entire life. The defendants are the registered owners of the subject lands.
Since the 1950's, one Oudit Ramlochan and his wife Baby Ramlochan were the tenants of the lands which comprises the subject premises upon which they had their dwelling house and the second named claimant grew up with them. According to the claimants, Oudit and his wife always held out or promised that the claimants and their children would benefit from the fact that the second named claimant worked with them in the tile-laying trade carried on by Oudit and that they would inherit the property which is the subject of these proceedings. The claimant's sought to rely upon a document dated 2nd April 1980 which the Ramlochans apparently signed.
The first named claimant said that she and her husband, in or around the year 1980, expended over Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) in the property and built a three-bedroom structure complete with all amenities in which the claimants, their children, and Oudit and his wife lived.
They say that around 1997/1998, Oudit and Baby Ramlochan transferred the tenancy interest in the lands to the defendants' mother/mother-in-law Kamaldai Ragoonanan and that when it was transferred, Kamaldai knew or ought to have known that the claimants had been living on a portion of said lands for, then, approximately thirty-five years. After the property was transferred to Kamaldai, the claimant's continued to live on/occupy the said portion of 2500 ft. 2 more or less which they apparently have occupied since about 1965. In 1997, the second named claimant apparently began proceedings against Kamaldai but after she died, no further steps were taken and that matter stood dismissed.
Kamaldai died in or about 2002 and, after her death, the defendants built a two-storey house and commenced living thereon. It is noteworthy that no steps were taken by the claimants to stop the building of that house despite their claim to be entitled to the property.
The claimants said that ever since the defendants commenced occupation of the property, they embarked upon a course of conduct calculated to disturb their right to possession and enjoyment of the 2500 ft.2 and that they threatened to evict them from the property and instituted ejectment proceedings against them and failed to recognize their interest in the land.
Throughout the years, the claimant said they have expended monies in maintaining the house which they built in the lands and painted, fenced and paved the property. The first named claimant says that for the past twenty-six years, she has conducted a trade of vending delicacies and prepares her items for sale on the property in an adjoining kitchen. This is her sole source of income.
Reference was made to certain correspondence in which Oudit and Baby offered the property for sale to the claimants and also to the fact that Baby left the property to the first named claimant in her will dated 19th February 1999.
On 11th August 2007, the claimant's said that the defendant disconnected the electricity supply to the area they occupy and, on 25th September 2007, the second named defendant apparently informed the first named claimant that she was going to construct a wall in front of her doorway, enclose the area and place a wooden bridge over the drain prohibiting the claimants' access through Mary Street. The construction of the said wall would have had the effect of lessening or diminishing the floor space of the claimant's kitchen and laundry area. Acting on that, the defendants offloaded loads of building materials on 26th September 2007 on to the portion of the lands occupied by the claimants and, in particular, in their doorway.
The claimants therefore sought the following reliefs:
12.1. A declaration that they are entitled to possession of that portion of land and building comprising 2500 ft.2 situated at number 19 Mary Street, Aranguez;
12.2. A declaration that they have an interest in the said lands and building;
12.3. Damages for trespass on 11th August 2007 and 27th August 2007 and continuing;
12.4. An injunction restraining the defendants from constructing or undertaking any construction in the style or mode of the concrete and brick wall or any structure sauce to encroach upon or diminish that part of the premises occupied by the claimants comprising 2500 ft. 2;
12.5. A similar injunction preventing the defendants from interfering with the claimant's use and enjoyment of the said lands and building;
12.6. An injunction restraining the defendant from crossing and/or entering upon and remaining upon the said lands and building;
12.7. A mandatory injunction compelling the defendants to take the necessary steps to reconnect and provide the claimant electricity;
12.8. Damages;
12.9. Costs;
12.10. Interest;
12.11. Such further or other relief
In their defence, the defendants denied that the second named claimant had lived in the property all of his life and alleged that he began to live with Oudit and Baby at the age of fifteen.
The defendants denied the document dated 2nd April 1980 was signed by the Ramlochans as they were both unable to read and write except that Oudit could write his name.
They denied that the Ramlochans promised the property to the claimants or that they spent Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) or any sum towards the construction of the property. They say that Oudit constructed the home with his own monies and labour and the labour of a few friends over the period of several years and in fact the claimants and their children always occupied one bedroom of the said three-bedroom house.
The defendants say that Kamaldai purchased the house and the tenancy from the Ramlochans on 27th October 1997 and then purchased the reversion on 28th June 2001. The defendant purchased Kamaldai's interest on 26th July 2001.
The defendants denied that the claimants occupy 2500 ft. 2 and stated that, in fact, they only occupied the one bedroom together with an area of about 4 feet in width under the eaves on the eastern and southern sides of the house which the in close with galvanized sheets. They say that the claimants were there with the permission and consent of the Ramlochans, then Kamaldai and then the defendants. The defendants say that when they purchased the property, two other bedrooms of the said house were tenanted by one Ms. Amy Singh and her husband and they relied upon a tenancy agreement dated 1st February 1999.
Prior as well as subsequent to the purchase of the property by the defendants, the defendants say that they spoke with the claimants and the tenants and informed them that they were about to, and subsequently did, purchase the property and that they had to renovate the property and they wanted them to vacate the premises. The tenants agreed that they would move and the claimants assured the defendants that the first named claimant and her son Vickash Singh had purchased a parcel of land at Sixth Street Extension, Mount Lambert and were just awaiting the running of electricity before they constructed a house and moved there. A copy of the deed was annexed to the defence.
The defendants denied that they ever embarked on a course of conduct calculated to disturb the claimants' possession of the room and area that they occupied and that they only became aware of their claim for an interest in the property by letter dated 29th May 2007.
The defendant said that they had to hire an electrician to check the internal electrical wiring and discovered that the claimant had an illegal electrical activity in the portion of the property they occupied and were forced to take temporary safeguards to prevent the risk of fire to the house.
There was no counterclaim for possession or for any other relief. The issues for determination:
Having regard to the state of the pleadings, it is necessary for the court to consider what issues it needs to resolve in relation to this matter. In that regard, it is proposed that the following issues will be dealt with:
22.1. Were the claimants on the said lands as bare licensees with the permission and consent of the Ramlochans, then they said Kamaldai and then the defendants or do they have an interest in the said lands?
22.1.1. Did Oudit and his wife hold out or promise that the claimants and their children would benefit from the fact that the second named claimant worked with them in the tile-laying trade carried on by Oudit and that they would inherit the property which is the subject of these proceedings?
22.1.2. Did the claimants spend over Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000.00) in the property and built a three-bedroom structure complete with all amenities in which the claimants, their children, and Oudit and his wife lived in or around the year 1980?
22.1.3. Throughout the years did the claimants expend monies in maintaining the house which they say they built on...
To continue reading
Request your trial