Ramnarine v Maharaj et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Charles, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 March 2016
• Neutral Citation: TT 2016 HC 140
• Docket Number: CV 2010-04660
• Date: 23 March 2016

Ramnarine

and

Maharaj et al

Charles, J

CV 2010-04660

High Court

Property Law - Application by the claimant for an order of possession — Whether the defendant had an interest in the premises by way of proprietary estoppel — Whether the defendant was encouraged and/or permitted by the deceased to construct the house — Whether the defendant relied on his permission with the expectation and belief that if he constructed the house he would enjoy the use of it — Whether the defendant acted to his detriment by so doing.

Appearances:

For the claimant: Mr. Saunders

For the defendants: Appearing and being unrepresented

Charles, J.

CLAIMANT'S PLEADINGS

1 The claimant is the sister of the first defendant and the sister-in-law of the second defendant. The claimant and the first defendant were two of four children born to Jagdeo Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

2 On January 15th, 1991 the claimant married one Kum Fu Chen who thereafter lived in the said premises. After approximately two (2) years of living in a board dwelling house along with the deceased and his family, the claimant and her husband obtained permission from the deceased to construct a three-bedroom concrete house at the rear of the board dwelling house and to live there for as long as they wished.

3 The claimant and her husband only lived in the concrete house for one (1) month after which they went to live at Westmoorings. The claimant's husband provided the deceased with the monies to complete the said three-bedroom concrete house. This house was completed in or about the year 1994.

4 In or about the year 2000, the claimant and her husband were divorced and on or about November 26th, 2002 the claimant moved back into the three-bedroom concrete house where her mother, the deceased and the defendants had taken up residence.

5 During the absence of the claimant, the defendants had constructed an “L” shaped foundation attached to the said premises on the northern and eastern sides.

6 Since the claimant returned to live in the three-bedroom concrete house the defendants have continued to reside in same and apart from casting the floor and erecting some concrete blocks on the “L” shaped foundation, they have not until recently made further attempts to construct rooms on the said “L” shaped portion. The defendants have occupied rooms in the three-bedroom concrete house and shared the living room, the kitchen and the toilet and bath with the claimant.

7 After the death of the deceased on September 13th, 2007, the relationship between the claimant and the defendants deteriorated significantly because the First defendant discovered that deceased left the three-bedroom concrete house to the claimant.

8 By virtue of a Deed of Assent dated March 26th, 2010 and registered in the Protocol of Deeds as No. DE 201001162124 the claimant became the registered owner and entitled to possession of the premises situate at and known as L.P. No. 2 Ragoonanan Trace East, Perseverance Road, Carapichaima, in the Ward of Chaguanas, in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago being all that flat concrete dwelling house measuring approximately 38 feet by 25 feet and built of hollow clay blocks, plastered and painted and containing 3 bedrooms, living/ dining rooms, kitchen, gallery and toilet and bath covered with iron galvanized sheets and standing on a parcel of land belonging to Pooran Maharaj and bounded on the North, South, East and West by lands of the said Pooran Maharaj (the subject premises).

9 The relationship between the claimant and the First defendant worsened. After an altercation which occurred between the claimant and the First defendant in which she alleged that he used threatening and abusive language towards her, the claimant sought and obtained a Protection Order against the First defendant on June 10th, 2008 which required him and his wife to vacate the three-bedroom concrete house.

10 By letter dated June 28th, 2010, the claimant's Attorney-at-Law wrote a pre-action protocol letter addressed to the First and Second defendants advising them to vacate the premises on or before July 31st, 2010. The First defendant responded by letter dated July 12th, 2010 in which he asked for an extension of six months to vacate the house in order to arrange suitable accommodation for his family. On August 3rd, 2010, the claimant's Attorney-Law sent a final letter to the First defendant advising that the request for the extension was denied and that all construction on the premises should cease with immediate effect.

11 On account of the defendants' failure to vacate the premises in accordance with the Protection Order and the First defendant's unwillingness to cease construction on the “L” shaped portion that the claimant instituted this action against the defendants for the following:

• a. Possession of the three-bedroom concrete dwelling house.

• b. An order that the defendants do break down and remove all structures and buildings erected by them on the said premises.

• c. An injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants and/or agents or otherwise howsoever from constructing and/or continuing to construct any building and/or structure on the said premises.

DEFENDANTS' PLEADINGS

12 At paragraph 1 of their Amended Defence, the defendants admitted paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Statement of Case of the claimant. The claimant's plea contained in paragraph 1 of her Statement of Case was that she became owner and entitled to possession of the subject property by Deed dated 26th March 2010 and registered as No DE 2010 0116 2124.

13 The First defendant pleaded that the deceased gave him permission to erect a concrete dwelling house on the land next to the three-bedroom house to accommodate himself, the Second defendant and their family for the rest of their lives. He further pleaded that the deceased and the First defendant sought and obtained the permission of Pooran Maharaj (the owner of the land which the subject premises was built) to erect the said concrete dwelling house to the back of the house occupied by the claimant.

14 The First defendant averred at paragraph 10 of the Amended Defence that he, with the acquiescence, active encouragement of the Deceased and of Pooran Maharaj, proceeded to erect an “L” shaped foundation attached to the south- western portion of the three-bedroom house and has constructed two bedrooms, a living room, kitchen, toilet and bath and three-quarters of the roof.

15 The defendants averred that they retained the services of Roy Construction Enterprises to undertake construction of the said house and to date have expended in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in the construction of the house.

16 By their Counterclaim the defendants claimed:

• a. A declaration that they are the owners of the “L” shaped foundation and the two-bedroom concrete dwelling house which stands on it.

• b. An injunction restraining the claimant from evicting or attempting to evict the defendants from the said two-bedroom dwelling house and the parcel of land on which its stands.

• c. An injunction restraining the claimant from preventing the defendants from completing construction of the said two-bedroom house.

• d. An injunction restraining the claimant from evicting the defendants from the three-bedroom dwelling house until completion of the two-bedroom dwelling house on the “L” shaped foundation.

• e. Alternatively, a partition and/ or sale of the lot of land on which both dwelling houses stand and the said dwelling houses and a division of the proceeds of sale in proportion to the value of the respective dwelling houses.

AMENDED REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

17 In her Amended Reply, the claimant denied that the First defendant made any financial contribution towards the construction of the subject premises as alleged in paragraph 5 of the Amended Defence and further averred that any contribution by the First defendant to labour was minimal.

18 At paragraph 6 the claimant pleaded that she was unable to admit or deny that the deceased and Pooran Maharaj gave permission to the First defendant to build a house on the lands.

19 The claimant was unable to admit or deny whether the First defendant proceeded to erect the “L” shaped foundation with the acquiescence, active encouragement and assistance of the deceased and of Pooran Maharaj and required the First defendant to prove same.

THE TRIAL

20 At the trial, the claimant was represented by her Attorney-at-law but the defendants were unrepresented. With the leave of the Court, Counsel for the claimant, Mr. Saunders, submitted that the claimant is entitled to judgement in respect of her claim for possession of the three bedroom concrete house. The basis of his submissions was that the defendants have not pleaded any defence to the claimant's claim for possession of the three-bedroom concrete dwelling house. In addition, the defendants have admitted by their Amended Defence at paragraph 15 that the claimant owned the three-bedroom concrete dwelling house.

21 After these submissions, I sought to elicit from the defendants whether their claim included the three bedroom house or was limited to the L-shaped foundation and 2 bedroom house which they averred in their Defence that they had constructed. Accordingly, I had the First defendant sworn for this purpose.

22 When asked if he was in agreement that the claimant owns the three-bedroom house based on his pleading the First defendant responded, “Yes Ma'am.” When asked if the “L” shaped foundation and the two-bedroom concrete dwelling house which stands thereon are the subject of his claim the First defendant responded, “Yes Ma'am. [page 6 of the transcript]

23 I therefore made an order for possession in favour of the claimant upon hearing the submissions of Counsel for the claimant and upon hearing the...