Ramlal v Mahase et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Brooks, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 February 1994
• Neutral Citation: TT 1994 HC 20
• Docket Number: No. 3189 of 1974
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 23 February 1994

High Court

Brooks, J.

No. 3189 of 1974

Ramlal

and

Mahase et al

Appearances:

S. Capildeo, assisted by Mr. Ramlal for the plaintiff.

A.Tiwary for the first defendant.

C. Phelps, instructed by N. De Verteuil-Milne, and at one stage by

Firm of Phelps, Montano & Co.

Contract - Sale of land — “Open contract” — Contract not uncertain or imprecise.

Brooks, J.

1 This case has a long and chequered history.

2 It was commenced by a Writ of Summons filed by the plaintiff on the 19th November 1974.

3 It concerns a parcel of land situate at Orange field Road, Chase Village, Carapichaima, in the Ward of Chaguanas, comprising 21,585 sq. ft. more or less, the subject matter of a contract of sale of land allegedly made between the 1st defendant (Kanhai Mahase) and the plaintiff (Chanderlal Ramlal) at the Rent Assessment Board, Port –of –Spain, on the 13th day of October, 1971.

4 The said parcel of land was at the time owned by Mr. Kanhai Mahase, the 1st defendant in this matter, which at the material time was mortgaged to Chaguaramas Terminals Limited.

5 It is alleged by the plaintiff in his second Further Re-amended Statement of Claim that the 1st defendant (Kanhai Mahase) agreed to sell and the plaintiff to buy the said parcel of land described above (as 3 3/4 lots by the parties) at and for a price of $5000.00. It was a patently ‘open contract’, and no date was fixed therein for the completion of the sale or transaction.

6 It subsequently transpired that the said parcel of land was eventually sold by the 1st defendant to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants on the 5th day of November, 1974, by deed registered as No. 13931 of 1974, and, arising from that said transaction, the plaintiff has now instituted these proceedings against the defendants for –

• (a) specific performance of the said agreement;

• (b) a declaration that deed No. 13931 dated 5 November 1974 made between the 1st defendant and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants is null and void, and of no effect;

• (c) an order setting aside and striking out the said deed from the Protocol of Deeds;

• (d) alternatively, a declaration that the purported transfer of the said land by the 1st defendant to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants is subject to the Agreement set out in paragraph (a) above, and an order that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants do transfer the said parcel of land to the plaintiff thereof and in default thereof that the Registrar (Supreme Court) be empowered to execute a proper conveyance of the said parcel of land to the plaintiff;

• (e) alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant by virtue of the Rent Restriction Act, Chapter 59:50;

• (f) costs.

7 The 2nd defendant is now dead.

8 I should begin by summarising as compactly as I can the evidence on both sides.

9 The plaintiff (a hardware merchant and businessman) gave evidence that he knew Kanhai Mahase from the early sixties and had developed a working relationship with him. He (the plaintiff) came to live at Chase Village in 1964. At that time, his wife carried on a hardware and lumber business at Chase Village. As that business prospered, he left his employment outside and joined his wife's business. He then bought two lots of lands from Mr. Mahase at Southern Main road, Chase Village, where he built his house and where his wife operated her business. As his business expanded, he bought the tenancies and chattel houses of three individuals Mr. Rooplal Maharaj, Miss Joyce Singh and Mr. Roopnarine (his father-in-law, now deceased) — all of whom lived at the back of his business place. Mr. Mahase owned the land on which those tenancies and chattel houses stood. Thereafter, he said he notified Mr. Mahase about the purchase of the said chattel houses and the tenancies and Mr. Mahase signified his non-objection to same. He also gave Mr. Mahase copies of the bill of sale respecting the said chattel houses and the tenancies which he had bought from Rooplal Maharaj, Joyce Singh and Mr. Roopnarine. Later on, he went to Mr. Mahase to pay him land rent, water rates and taxes in respect of the said houses and tenancies which he had purchased, and Mahase refused to accept the rent, indicating he would have to increase same. He attempted to pay the rent again on a few occasions, but was met by the same response so he then consulted his lawyers who advised him to file an application with the Rent Assessment Board for determination of the standard rent of the said houses and tenancies. This application, however, was abandoned by the parties before it could be heard by the Rent Assessment Board. There, he said, an agreement was struck. Mahase offered to sell and he to buy the three pieces of land on which the tenancies and houses stood for $5,000. The agreement for sale of the 3 3/4 lots of land (later surveyed by Mr. Jardine and found to be 21,585 sq. ft.) was hammered out at the Rent Assessment Board, Port-of-Spain, in the presence of two Attorneys — Mr. Marcial, acting on behalf of Mahase, and Mr. Simboonath Capildeo, who looked after the interests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff insists that Exhibit “CR1” represents the actual written agreement for sale of the aforementioned parcel of land which the parties (he and the 1st defendant) both signed at the Rent Assessment Board on the 13 October 1971 in the presence of their two attorneys. The signatures on document (“CR1”) were appended (the plaintiff maintained) after all corrections, interlineations and alterations had been made to the said document by Mr. Simboonath Capildeo in the presence of Mr. Marcial, himself, and the 1st defendant Kanhai Mahase. Mr. Capildeo also signed the document as a witness. This is how the matter was put by the plaintiff in his Examination In Chief: “I signed the agreement for the sale of the lands to me by Mr. Mahase. Mr. Mahase also signed in my presence. Mr. Simboonath Capildeo also signed as witness to the document — the agreement. We all signed the agreement. After it was signed, Mr. Capildeo read it out to me. Then Mr. Mahase's lawyer asked me if I understood everything. I said ‘yes’”. The plaintiff added that thereafter he went to his lawyers’ office and paid the $59.80 which was to be tendered to Mr. Mahase for one year's rates and taxes which he had agreed to pay. Thereafter, the plaintiff explained that he visited the home of the 1st defendant on several occasions to get the 1st defendant to accompany him to the offices of Messrs. Capildeo and Capildeo to complete the sale, but Mahase told him that he (Mahase) was not feeling well as a consequence of the vehicular accident which he had been involved in sometime ago. He (the plaintiff) kept his lawyers informed of what was happening. As a result of that, letters were dispatched to Mahase requesting him to go to Capildeo's office, but Mahase never really attended. Following that, the plaintiff said he next spoke to Seegoolam Jaglal (now deceased) his neighbour and relative of Southern Main Road, Chase Village. He enlisted the help of the 2nd defendant (Seegoolam Jaglal) for the purpose of persuading Mahase to conclude the transaction. Jaglal, too, promised to assist. Seegoolam Jaglal used to visit his home to use his telephone to order supplies for his grocery and he and the Jaglals used to exchange visits. Mahase's home lies to the North of his; the Jaglals, to the South. Rooplal's piece consists of one lot; Joyce Singh, roughly one lot, and Roopnarine, roughly 2 lots, with a shed thereon. The plaintiff went on to say that he started storing materials in Roopnarine's shed in 1967. He got to the Roopnarine shed by travelling on foot through Rooplal Maharaj's piece. Vehicles, however, reached the said shed via the Orange Field Road. The plaintiff maintained that after acquiring Rooplal Maharaj's house, he repaired same, and continued his wire fence straight down to meet the fence of Roopnarine's portion, leaving a space wide enough for vehicles to enter. He also went into occupation of Rooplal Maharaj's house in 1969/1970 — together with his family. In 1970, he took over Roopnarine's piece – with the shed, and the tenancy rights of Joyce Singh. He built a concrete drain which separated his 2 lots of land from Rooplal's piece. He also removed the fence which separated his 2 lots of land from Joyce Singh's piece and built a fence to the back of Ghany Khan's land, which abuts Jaglal's wall. He then approached Kanhai Mahase to pay to him land rent, water rates and taxes in respect of Roopnarine's piece, Rooplal Maharaj's piece and Joyce Singh's piece for 1970, but Mahase refused to accept same. He attempted to do so again on other occasions, but met with no success. Mr. Marcial did dot sign the written agreement (“CR1”). He had shown Seegoolam Jaglal a copy of the agreement (“CR1”) and had discussed same with him on a number of occasions — both at his home, and at the grocery — in the presence of Maharani Jaglal and Dhanieram Jaglal. A survey was done on the 3 pieces of land by Mr. Jardine in 1974. He had entrusted a copy of the survey plan to Mr. Seegoolam Jaglal, but Jaglal never returned the copy to him despite repeated requests by him for its retrieval. Kanhai Mahase never conveyed the 3 pieces of land to him. He found out that they had been conveyed to Seegoolam Jaglal, Maharani Jaglal and Dhanieram Jaglal. At the time of the conveyance, the plaintiff stressed that he was in occupation of all three pieces of land. The conveyance was made in November 1974. He became aware of the conveyance at Jaglal's grocery when he went there to buy groceries. At the time he learned of the sale, he was living in Rooplal Maharaj's house. He was also occupying Rooplal Maharaj's piece and Joyce Singh's piece, whereas his half brother (Victor Ramlal) was living in Joyce Singh's house. It was within his knowledge that Roopnarine had gone to see Mahase about the sale of the houses and the tenancies to him. Mahase told...