Satnarine Singh v Patricia Sinaswee-Manwaring
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Madame Justice Margaret Y Mohammed |
| Judgment Date | 21 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 2019 HC 303 |
| Docket Number | Claim No. CV2017-01944 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Year | 2019 |
the Honourable Madame Justice Margaret Y Mohammed
Claim No. CV2017-01944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
SUB-REGISTRY-SAN FERNANDO
Mr Narad Harrikissoon instructed by Mr Cheika Anthony Attorneys at law for the Claimant.
Ms Veena Badrie Maharaj instructed by Ms Reshma Seetahal Attorneys at law for the Defendants.
The main issue in the instant action is whether the Claimant has extinguished the title of the Defendants to 8 3/4 acres of land situate in the Ward of Carapichaima 1 (“the lands”) under section 22 of the Real Property Limitation Act 2 (“the Limitation Act”) by being in adverse possession of it for the requisite period of at least 16 years.
The Claimant in his pleadings alleged that in or around 1960, his father, Mr Ramsaran Singh (“Mr Singh”) went into occupation of the lands. Mr Singh used the lands for agricultural purposes by cultivating the lands with short-term crops such as peas, corn, sweet potatoes, cassava, rice and sugar cane and tended cattle. Mr Singh paid rent in the sum of $83.00 to Mr Irish Sinaswee on 23 April 1960 (“the 1960 receipt”) and thereafter on 30 June 1985 (“the 1985 receipt”) to Mr Silbert Sinaswee (“Mr Sinaswee”) in the amount of $330.00. After 1985, neither Mr Singh nor his agents and or servants paid any rent to Mr Sinaswee or anyone else claiming entitlement to the lands.
On 28 February 1990, Mr Sinaswee filed in the Petty Civil Court Couva, Civil Action No. 22 of 1990 against Mr Singh to recover possession of the lands (“the first matter”). This first matter was determined on 20 July 1992 in favour of Mr Singh. However, an error, the recording of the judgment stated that it was disposed of in favour of Mr Sinaswee. By Petty Civil Court Action No. 37 of 1994 (“the second matter) Mr Sinaswee filed proceedings against Mr Singh for possession of the lands on the same grounds as the first
On 4 July 1997, Mr Sinaswee caused a Warrant of Possession (“the Warrant”) to be issued against Mr Singh claiming that he obtained judgment in the first matter. Mr Singh filed Civil Proceeding No. 856 of 1997 (“the third matter”), being an application for judicial review against Mr Kent Barran, Clerk of the Peace, and Mr Ashton Foster, Bailiff I, both then employed at the Couva Magistrate's Court for the illegal issuance and subsequent execution of the Warrant. Mr Singh died on 1 August 1998 appointing the Claimant as his sole executor under his Will. The Claimant was substituted in place of Mr Singh in the third matter, which was settled by consent on 20 January 2000 in favour of the Claimant.
On 20 February 1999, the Claimant noticed Mr Sinaswee and a Mr Harrylal Dipnarine (also known as Terry) upon the lands. They destroyed several of the Claimant's crops, dug trenches and laid building materials upon the lands. On 21 February 1999, the Claimant noticed that concrete casting had been placed in the trenches. He confronted Mr Sinaswee and Mr Dipnarine and requested that they cease their trespass and remove the materials. Mr Dipnarine then informed the Claimant that he had purchased a portion of the lands from Mr Sinaswee.
On 22 February 1999 the Claimant's then attorneys at law, Messrs Roopnarine and Company wrote to Mr Sinaswee and Mr Dipnarine requesting that they cease their trespass and remove the material. The Claimant filed Civil Proceeding No. 163 of 1999 on 23 February 1999 (“the fourth matter”) against Mr Sinaswee and Mr Dipnarine as a result of their trespass. The matter was determined in favour of the Claimant on 1 March 2001.
The Claimant contended that in August 2014, the First Defendant, by herself and/ or as agent and or servant of the Third Defendant, her mother, unlawfully entered upon the lands, damaged several of the Claimant's crops and hired a backhoe to destroy his perimeter surrounding the lands. By letter dated 7 October 2014 (“the October 2014 letter”) the Claimant's then attorneys at law, Mr Prem Persad-Maharaj and Company wrote (in response to a letter dated 1 October 2014 sent to the Claimant by the Third Defendant's attorney at law), requesting that she cease her trespass upon the lands. The First Defendant whether by herself and or as agent of the Third Defendant failed and or refused to accede to the Claimant's request and in June 2015, attempted to have the lands surveyed by Isaac's Survey Control and requested that the Claimant vacate the lands.
By letter dated 10 June 2015 (“the June 2015 letter”), the Claimant's attorneys at law, Messrs Harrikissoon and Company, wrote to the Third Defendant calling upon her to cease and desist from entering, remaining, and trespassing upon the lands. However, at the end of the last quarter of 2015, the First Defendant attempted to enter the lands with a land surveyor and placed 9 pegs on the lands, which the Claimant later removed.
On 12 April 2017, while tending his cattle on the lands, the Claimant noticed the Second Defendant on the lands attempting to survey same and to install pickets. The Claimant called his son via his cell phone to take pictures of the persons trespassing on the lands. The Second Defendant then threatened the Claimant with a cutlass, forcing him to grab hold of same.
On the 13 April 2017, the Claimant went onto the lands when he encountered two pieces of pipe across the pathway, constructed by Mr Singh and which he used to access to the lands. The agents and or servants of the First Defendant, and the Second Defendant himself, refused to remove the pipes, and told the Claimant to pass somewhere else. The Claimant reported the incident to the police who returned to the lands that day, and the First Defendant's agents and or servants removed the pipes. One week thereafter, the Claimant removed the post erected by the First Defendant, her servants and or agents.
On 8 May 2017 (“the 8 May 2017 letter”), the Claimant received a letter from the First Defendant's attorneys at law indicating that she had retained the services of a Bailiff, who would inter alia, remove his livestock on 22 May 2017, should he refuse to vacate the lands. On 23 May 2017 (“the 23 May 2017 letter”), the Claimant attended the office of his attorneys at law to prepare a response. However, the First Defendant via her agents and or servants who purported to be a bailiff and police officers unlawfully trespassed upon the lands seeking to remove his livestock and materials. A letter dated 23 May 2017, was sent to the First Defendant's attorneys at law to immediately cease and desist from entering, remaining, and trespassing upon the lands and further to cease and desist from obstructing, harassing and or molesting the Claimant on the basis that she failed and or refused to prove any right or interest.
The Claimant asserted that he became aware that the lands were distributed amongst the Defendants by the virtue of numerous Deeds disclosed in the instant proceedings.
Based on the aforesaid facts, the Claimant contended that any entitlement or claim to the lands by the Defendants, have since been extinguished due to the Claimant's and his predecessors continued possession of the lands. As such the Claimant has sought to obtain the following orders:
-
(i) A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to possession of the lands.
-
(ii) A declaration that the Defendants have no legal right and or interest and or estate in the lands;
-
(iii) A declaration that the Defendants have no legal right to occupy and or attempt to occupy the lands;
-
(iv) A declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to possession, entry and use and or enjoyment of the lands;
-
(v) An injunction restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves or their agents and or agents or howsoever otherwise from damaging and or destroying and or demolishing and or altering any part of the lands occupied by the Claimant and or any structures erected and or affixed thereon.
-
(vi) An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or their servants and or agents from entering and or remaining and or trespassing and or attempting to occupy the lands;
-
(vii) An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or their servants and or agents from excluding and or attempting to exclude the Claimant from entering and or remaining and or occupying the lands;
-
(viii) An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or their servants and or agents from harassing and or annoying and or interfering with the Claimant's right to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the lands;
-
(ix) An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves and or their agents from harassing, molesting and or interfering with the Claimant and his servants and or agents;
-
(x) Damages for trespass;
-
(xi) Damages for assault;
-
(xii) Costs and interest.
The Defendants asserted that they are the legal owners of the lands. They alleged that Mr Singh was put into possession in 1968 under the Agricultural Small Holding Tenure Act 3 (“the Agricultural Act”) and that the tenancy at most endured for 50 years. The Defendants also asserted that since 1997 the Claimant has failed to use the lands for the purpose for which they were let. As such the Claimant has not been in adverse possession of the lands for the requisite 16 years as prescribed by the Limitation Act. Instead the Claimant has been in actual possession of only 3 lots of the lands upon which he has stored derelict vehicle parts and other materials.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial