Roopnarinesingh v Sookram et Al
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Blackman, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1983 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1983 HC 19 |
| Docket Number | No. 846 of 1970 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 10 March 1983 |
High Court
Blackman, J.
No. 846 of 1970
Mr. B. Ramlogan for plaintiff.
Mr. Frank Misir, Q.C. and with him
Mr. H: Seunath for defendants.
Contract - Sale of land — In contract vendor agreed to grant purchasers tenancy of land if the plans were not approved and to allow them to erect a building immediately according to an approved and registered plan — Plaintiff claimed that the defendant immediately began to demolish a structure on the land and replace it and committed other acts of waste — Defendants said that they did so pursuant to the agreement — Evidence that defendant's goods suffered damage because the plaintiff stopped work on the building — Plaintiff's action dismissed and an injunction granted in favour of plaintiff discharged.
This case has caused me some difficulty. The plaintiff and the defendants entered into a written contract on 10th July, 1970, for the sale of a parcel of land being a portion of a larger area. The superficial area of the said parcel of land was not given in the written contract but it was provided that the land should measure seventy feet in frontage and approximately one hundred feet more or less in depth. The consideration was stated to be nine thousand dollars of which the defendants paid one thousand dollars by way of deposit. The remaining sum of eight thousand dollars was to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff “as soon as the land. is surveyed and the plans approved, and the Memorandum of Transfer prepared and executed”.
The contract also contained a provision that “if the plans in respect to the said lands cannot be approved, the vendor agrees to grant the purchasers tenancy of the said parcel of land for a period of twenty-five years, at a yearly rental of $125.00”.
The plaintiff also agreed to allow the defendants to erect a building immediately according to approved plan registered on 17th July, 1969 as No. 15,805/69.
The written contract and the building plan referred to in it, wore put into evidence by consent of the parties and marked No.4 and No.3 respectively.
Problems appeared to have arisen between plaintiff and the defendants in connection with the carrying out of the provisions of the contract permitting the defendants to erect a building in accordance with the building plan referred to above and which is marked No. 3. As a result of these difficulties, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendants.
In her Statement of Claim, the plaintiff, after referring to the contract, claimed inter alia that in or about the month of September, 1970, the defendants, contrary to the said plan, began wrongfully and/or negligently to breakdown and demolish the paid building on the said parcel of land, to replace the same with a concrete structure and to change the shape, size and structure of the said building and to commit other acts of waste upon the slid building and land; also that in or about October, 1970, the defendants trespassed upon and occupied other lands of the plaintiff and wrongfully erected a wall on the southern side of the said building; pertly on other lands of the plaintiff in such a manner and position and beyond and outside the lands agreed to be sold, so as to create a nuisance.
Particulars of negligence were given as follows:–
-
(a) failing to follow the said approved plan; and
-
(b) extending the said building and erecting a wall on to other lands of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also claimed that despite repeated requests the defendants had failed and refused to discontinue the said breaking-down and demolishing and/or to remove the said wall and contended that because of the defendants' acts, she has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said lands and has suffered damage.
The defendants in their defence admitted the agreement of 10th July, 1970, the approval of the building plan at paragraphs 2 and 3 of their defence, and at paragraph 4 of the defence contended that they continued to construct the premises in compliance with the approved plan no. 15,05/69. Further, and as an alternative, the defendants stated that even if they violated the approved plan, they did so by virtue of the agreement of 10th July, 1970, and the collateral and/or supplement agreement of 13th October, 1970.
The defendants, at paragraphs 7 and 8 of their defence, also denied that they wrongfully and/or negligently and contrary to the plan, began to demolish and breakdown tile said building or that they trespassed upon and occupied ether lands of the plaintiff and wrongfully erected a wall on the southern side partly on the lands of the plaintiff, and contended that the wall was constructed inside of the said premises as the entire building formed part of the sale agreement and not a part.
The particulars of negligence were denied by the defendants and also paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
The defendants also set up a counterclaim seeking damages for breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff by their illegally and/or unlawfully hindering and/or stopping the defendants from carrying out and/or constructing the said premises and/or hindering the defendants from erecting and/or renovating the said building based upon the terms of the agreements of 10th July, 1970 and 13th October, 1970.
The defendants then set out numerous items of special damages — some 75 of them.
In heir reply, the plaintiff denied that the agreement was for the entire building; and also denied that she agreed to allow the defendants to have the said plan so that they could build as alleged; and also that the defendants had complied with the approved plan.
The collateral agreement of the 13th October was also denied by the plaintiff.
Now, the evidence of Seepersad Cassie, who is the husband of the plaintiff, and who took a very active part in all the transactions, was to the effect that from a parcel of land comprising 10,864 sq. ft., it was agreed to sell the defendants a portion measuring 70 feet frontage and approximately 100 feet in depth; that on that land stood two buildings, the one to the south being his. He said that a distance of 12 ft separated one building from the other. He said that he contacted Mr. Stoute and he surveyed the land for him; but problems arose because the defendants started to put up a concrete wall on the side by him, that is, where he lived. The defendants did this after breaking down a galvanized palings The wall left him, and by implication the plaintiff, a 35 ft frontage only. His complaint was that the defendants pulled down a galvanized paling and in replacing it by a walls erected the wall about 8 ft 6 inches away from where that paling was, that is, nearer to his building, and that the wall it now less than 2ft away from his building.
In cross-examination he said that when the plan was drawn there were two buildings on the land and that “existing building;” on exhibit No. 3 meant the building the defendants were in. He said that the building approved was 65 ft wide, and that the defendants commenced building before he had had the land surveyed. He said in order that the defendants could get his 7,000 sq. feet, the defendants would have to move further south; and that the would get the additional 3,000 odd sq. feet if they went over the drain. He said he had no complaint with retard to the building; his complaint was that the defendants had put the wall in the wrong place…
The plaintiff, Dulcie Roopnarinesingh, now Dulcie Seepersad by marriage, testified that in 1970 she agreed to sell a piece of land on which there was a building rented to the defendants at $45.00 per month. She said that after the land was surveyed by Mr. Stoute, the Surveyor, she showed the boundary across the drain to the defendants; and at that stage problems arose. She at first said that the only reason for bringing the matter to court was that the defendants did not pay in accordance with the agreement; but she later said that the defendants broke down a galvanized fence and built a wall of bricks nearer to their house (her husband's and hers) that is, where the galvanized fence was; and that water from the defendants' roof falls on to her land. She said that she gave one of the defendants — the husband — a building plan to renovate the building and that the defendants were buying about 7,000 sq. feet of land but that she did not measure out they land before: it was surveyed. She stated that the defendant, Sonilal Sookram, did not have to close down his business, nor was the building in a “broken down state”. She said that if he had paid the money, there would have been no difficulty.
Charles Lester Stoute, the Surveyor employed by the plaintiff to survey and sub-divide the land, gave evidence on the plaintiff's behalf. He is a registered licensed land surveyor who qualified in that field in 1933. He said he spoke to Seepersad Cassie, the husband of the plaintiff, who wanted him to subdivide a piece of land. He was attempting to “cut out” a parcel. of land 70 feat by 100 feet to give, 7,000 sq. feet; but he only got 3,370 sq. feet because the measurements had to be 70 ft along the road and 100 ft in depth. He testified that because the parties could not agree he did not complete the subdivision. He said that the area on the survey plan (No. 1) marked “old building” was an existing building comprising a supermarket. He said he could not have got a piece of land 70 ft by 100 ft giving 7,000 sq. ft from the piece of land and that the only way he could get an area of 7,000 sq. feet is by going to a depth of some 200 ft; and even so, to avoid the old building foundation, the line would not be a straight one. He said the complete width of the land is 113 ft, and the width of the drain in about 5 to 6ft and that the land across it...
To continue reading
Request your trial