Ramnarace v Boodram-Ramnarace

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2016
• Neutral Citation: TT 2016 HC 158
• Docket Number: CV 2013-05040
• Date: 25 April 2016

High Court

Mohammed, J.

CV 2013-05040

Ramnarace

and

Boodram-Ramnarace

Appearances:

Mr. Prem Persad-Maharaj instructed by Mr. Prakash Maharaj for the claimant

Mr. Rennie K. Gosine for the defendant

Property Law - Claim for exclusive possession of both a residential and commercial property — Whether the claimant was entitled to vacant possession of the properties — Whether the defendant had established that she was entitled to an equitable interest in the residential property by virtue of the doctrine of promissory or proprietary estoppel — Whether an assurance had been made by the legal land owner — Whether the assurance was relied on by the person claiming the right — Whether the person claiming relied on the assurance to their detriment — Exclusive possession — Whether the claimant established that she was entitled to an equitable interest in the business property — Whether the defendant was entitled to make a claim on behalf of her deceased husband's estate.

Mohammed, J.

INTRODUCTION

1 This decision concerns a claim for exclusive possession of both residential property situate at No. 146A Ramnarace Avenue, Batchiya Branch Trace, Penal which comprises point eight zero nine two hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the residential property”) and business property situate at No. 1200 S.S. Erin Road, Abdool Village, Penal which comprises zero point one four seven five hectares (hereinafter referred to as “the business property”).

2 The claimant is the mother-in-law of the defendant. The defendant was married to the claimant's son, Shankar Ramnarace on 7 February 2007. Shankar Ramnarace (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) subsequently died on 18 August 2013.

3 At the time of his death the deceased was still married to the defendant. The defendant has not re-married. The defendant presently resides at the residential property and the claimant seeks to have the defendant removed from possession of the residential property. The claimant also seeks to have the defendant removed from possession of the business property where the defendant currently operates a wholesale soft drink depot “Ramnarace Soft Drink Depot.”

THE PROCEDURAL SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

4 On 9 December 2013 the claimant initiated the instant claim for exclusive possession by fixed date claim form supported by her affidavit. By her claim, the claimant sought against the defendant, the following relief from the court:

• i. Exclusive possession of the residential property in contention;

• ii. Exclusive possession of the business property in contention;

• iii. A Declaration that the defendant is not entitled to possession of both the residential and business property;

• iv. An Order that the defendant forthwith deliver up vacant possession and occupancy of both the residential and business property;

• v. An Injunction prohibiting/restraining the defendant, her servants and or agents from interfering with and maintaining both the residential and business property;

• vi. An Injunction prohibiting/restraining the defendant, her servants and or agents from constructing, modifying or removing any part of the buildings, trees, chattels or appurtenances that are upon both the residential and business property;

• vii. An Injunction prohibiting/restraining the defendant, her servants and or agents from obstructing the claimant, her servants and or agents from entering, occupying and enjoying both the residential and business property;

• viii. An Injunction prohibiting/restraining the defendant, her servants and or agents from threatening to do bodily harm to the claimant, her servants and or agents.

• ix. An Injunction prohibiting/restraining the defendant, her servants and or agents from trespassing on both the residential and business property;

• x. A Mandatory Injunction requiring the defendant to remove all locks, mantraps or other harmful equipment or substances from both the residential and business property;

• xi. Damages for trespass;

• xii. Costs; and

• xiii. Such further and/or other relief as the Court deems fit.

5 On 9 December 2013 the claimant also filed a Notice of Application supported by affidavit and accompanied by a certificate of urgency seeking an urgent hearing ex parte for several injunctive relief against the defendant. The court directed that the said application and accompanying documents be served on the defendant and that the said application be heard inter partes on the 13 December 2013.

6 At the hearing on 13 December 2013 both parties were present and legally represented, permission being granted to Mr. Rennie Gosine to appear amicus curiae for the defendant. The application seeking injunctive relief was dismissed on the principal basis that the said application, being interim (interlocutory) in nature, sought extensively substantive and final relief which could only be granted on a trial. However, without admitting to any allegation made against each other, both parties entered cross-undertakings with the court in relation to any outstanding arrears owed to T&TEC and the supply of electricity to the premises at 146A Batchiya Trace, Penal (the residential property). Directions were also given for the claimant to file and serve an appropriate statement of case in support of the fixed date claim by the 10 January 2014.

7 On the 9 January 2014 the claimant filed an amended fixed date claim form pursuant to CPR Part 20.1 together with the statement of case. It followed that on 13 March 2014 a defence and counterclaim to the claimant's amended fixed date claim form and statement of case was filed by Mr. Rennie Gosine, attorney-at-law on behalf of the defendant in her personal capacity. Thereafter, on 25 April 2014 the claimant filed a defence to the defendant's counterclaim in response to the defendant's defence.

8 By Notice of Application filed on 18 June 2014 the defendant applied for an order that the defendant, as the administratrix of the estate of Shankar Rakesh Ramnarace (her deceased husband), be added as a second defendant, since she had applied for and obtained a grant of letters of administration dated 21 March 2014. The ground of the application was that the estate of the deceased has an interest in the properties mentioned in the fixed date claim and it was necessary that the estate of the deceased be added as a defendant to the action so that the court may resolve the issue of his equitable interest in the said properties.

9 On 23 June 2014 an order was made granting the defendant's application which was filed on 18 June 2014 referred to in the preceding paragraph. Leave was granted to amend the defendant's defence and counterclaim to reflect the second defendant being added as a party. Despite the order, no such amendment was ever made to the pleading to reflect that the defendant is now also a party in her administrative capacity. On this date also the court gave full directions for the future progress of the case and fixed the trial for the 17 and 21 November 2014.

10 On 26 September 2014 the claimant filed her witness statement as well as the witness statements of: (i) Harridwari; (ii) Rajnarine Ramgoolan (iii) Rajendra Ramdeo; and (iv) Sathrohan Ramnarace. On 3 October 2014 the defendant filed her witness statement and attached documents in support.

11 On 7 October 2014 the claimant filed an agreed statement of issues for determination at trial which comprised of enquiries into:

• i. The claimant's entitlement to vacant possession of both the residential and business property;

• ii. Whether the defendant could establish an equitable interest of both the residential and business property by virtue of proprietary estoppel and if so, whether the extent of that equity would allow the defendant entitlement to the residential property and a life interest in the business property;

• iii. Whether the defendant is entitled in law to make a claim to her deceased husband's estate;

• iv. The authenticity of the bills produced by the defendant for expenses attributed to the residential property; and

• v. Whether the defendant comes to the court with clean hands with regard to any entitlement in equity.

12 As fixed, the matter came on for trial on the 17 and 21 November 2014. Thereafter, written submissions were filed and exchanged on the 16 January 2015 and on 6 February 2015 attorney-at-law for the defendant filed a reply to the claimant's submissions. The matter was called on the 23 March 2015 for further oral and/or clarification of submissions but no such further submissions were made.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY

13 The claimant and her husband, Deo Ramnarace, became seized and possessed of the residential property as joint tenants on 25 June 1985 by virtue of a Memorandum of Transfer, registered in Volume 3123 Folio 219. Deo Ramnarace died on 9 June 2011 leaving the claimant as the last surviving joint tenant and thus the sole legal paper title owner of the residential property. The couple had four children during their marriage, namely, Sathrohan, Nirmala, Shankar (the deceased husband of the defendant) and Taramatee. It was unchallenged evidence that the claimant is the paper title holder of the residential property and has been in occupation of the property since 1978.

14 The claimant stated by affidavit in support of her claim that prior to Shankar's marriage to the defendant she and her husband converted two rooms for her son and the defendant to live temporarily, until they were able to afford a home of their own. The couple moved into the said premises upon their marriage. The claimant was adamant that neither Shankar nor the defendant undertook any repairs or construction works to the residential property and further that they only furnished it. According to the claimant, her husband and elder son, Sathrohan, were all occupying the residential property at that time.

15 During this living arrangement...