Re Application of Bandhoo, Himraj

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2002
• Neutral Citation: TT 2002 HC 116
• Docket Number: 9 of 1999
• Date: 30 August 2002

Re: Application of Bandhoo, Himraj

Mohammed, J.

9 of 1999

High Court

Real property - Registered land — Application to bring land under the provisions of the Real Property Ordinance Chap 27:11 — Applicant claims to have acquired title by adverse possession — Finding that the applicant had failed to establish possession for a period of thirty years or more as required of section 2 of the State Suits Limitation Act (as amended).

Appearances:

For applicant: S. Sowley

For Director of Surveys: R. Mohammed

Mohammed, J.

THE CLAIM

1 The applicant applied pursuant to section 8 of the Real Property Ordinance Ch. 27 No. 11 to have bought under its provisions, a parcel of land in Diego Martin comprising 0.6781 hectares.

2 The particular parcel is located at L.P 44D Fort George Road, St. James.

3 It is vested in the State and the applicant claims to have acquired title by virtue of adverse possession. Under section 2 of the State Suits Limitation Act (as amended) the relevant limitation period is thirty years exclusive possession. The applicant contended that his father, Sooknanan Bhandoo entered the parcel of land in 1958 and began to “clear” the same which was then covered in high bush and grass. In or about 1960 his mother and father and other members of his family began living on the parcel in a wooden house which they had constructed. His father continued clearing the land planting crops such as cabbage, tomato and cucumber. He also reared cattle, goats and sheep. In 1970 the cattle was enclosed in a coral the size of which was described by one witness as being “a quarter the size of Woodford Square”. Prior to that, the cattle were permitted to roam freely on the land.

4 Upon the death of his father in 1984, the applicant said that he continued to live there and constructed a concrete building which replaced the original wooden house. He planted a large number of fruit trees but his cultivation was not as extensive as his father's had been. In 1992 he constructed a concrete foundation for a second building but never completed it.

5 The applicant's evidence of adverse possession was supported by statutory declarations of Valton Proctor, Roy Bhagan, Indal Jaggessar, Nabbee Juman and Randolph Liverpool all of whom deposed that they knew the applicant and his father to have been residing on the property since 1960 and that they cultivated crops and reared cattle, goats and sheep. There was also a statutory declaration from Mr. Ignon Nakhid, retired Valuation Officer who, pursuant to the new guidelines, conducted a site visit. He deposed:

“having visited the site and carried out the investigations and interviews, that I did, and observed the physical condition of the site itself. I am of the opinion that the claim of the applicant that he and his predecessors in title have been in occupation of the subject parcel of land for more than 38 years is true and correct.”

6 His opinion was formed from observations of the applicant's house which he described as having “obviously been on the site for some time”, his observations of fruit trees on the site which he said had “obviously been planted more than 30 years ago by reason of their size and appearance” and his observation of the concrete foundation which he described as “weather beaten”.

7 The interviews to which Mr. Nakid referred were interviews with Valton Proctor, Indal Jaggessar and Randolph Liverpool.

8 Mr. Indal Jaggessar who, other than the applicant, was the only declarant to submit himself to cross-examination stated that he assisted Sooknanan Bandhoo in bringing wood and galvanize on the parcel of land for construction of the wooden house. He said that he visited the applicant on the land on numerous occasions and in 1960 the land was “partly” covered in high wood and grass.

9 Section 18 of the Ordinance requires that notice of the application be posted on the subject parcel “or at such a place as judge shall direct”.

10 The intention is to provide the origin al owner of the fee simple with notice of the application. The claim in this case was against the State and I directed that the proceedings be served on the Director of Surveys who subsequently objected to the application on the ground...