Seepersad v Chandoo
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Warner, J. |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1990 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1990 HC 183 |
| Docket Number | 4463 of 1973 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 28 November 1990 |
High Court
Warner, J.
4463 of 1973
Mr. L. Birmingham for the plaintiff.
Mr. E. Maundy for the defendant.
Real property - Ownership — Plaintiff claimed to be in occupation of land from 1961 — Defendant stating that he was granted letters of administration to estate since 1974 — Declaration that defendant is entitled to possession — Nominal damages for trespass awarded against the plaintiff.
This action arises out of a dispute over the occupation and right to occupation of a parcel of land immediately south of the Eastern Main road at Curepe, known as Lot No.1 Eastern Main Road, Curepe and in proximity to the St. Joseph River bridge.
The plaintiff claims to have been in possession of this parcel of land since 15 th December, 1961 and that he continues in possession. In the statement of claim, it is alleged that the defendant, who in 1974 orally represented to the plaintiff that he was owner, has been entering upon the land carrying out clearing and cleaning works, has on several occasions struck him and continues to moles him and disturb his use and occupation.
The defendant, in the defence, says that since 1974 he has been granted letters of administration of the estate of one Barban Seepersad, having obtained probate of the will of Potiah. In the defence, the history of Barban Seepersad's connection with the parcel of land as contained in the statement of claim is adopted. Seepersad was a lessee of the crown in respect of the parcel in dispute from 3 rd December, 1928 to 3 rd December, 1953, following which he continued in possession up to his death on 15 th December, 1961.
Further the defendant alleges that in April, 1974, when he showed the plaintiff a copy of the grant of probate and a photocopy of letters of administration, he requested him to leave and the 4 plaintiff promised that he would vacate in two or three months and they agreed to this. The defendant denies having struck the plaintiff or having disturbed his use of the land, but claims that he has entered on two occasions in order to abate nuisances as a result of abatement notices served upon him by the Public Health Department.
By way of counterclaim, the defendant seeks a declaration that he is entitled to possession of the parcel of land by virtue of the administration and the probate and according to the provisions of the will of Potiah Seepersad, mesne profits from 20 th April, 1974 and one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200) proceeds of sale of the produce from bearing fruit trees, as well as damages for trespass.
While the plaintiff claims to be the son of Barban Seepersad the defendant denies this saying that Barban Seepersad never fathered any children and that the defendant, as a boy, did odd jobs about Barban's house and received board and lodging in return, while alternating between Barban's house and his foster mother's house.
The plaintiff, Krishna Seepersad, gave evidence mainly along the lines of the statement of claim, stating that he had grown up on that land and had discovered through his birth certificate that Potiah, wife of Barban Seepersad, was not his mother. In fact the birth certificate produced contains the name Mitchell in the name column and is blank in the column for name and surname for father. The person named as mother is Rosaline Ragbir. The person to whom the certificate relates is a boy and a date of birth is 12 th May, 1950.
The plaintiff Seepersad stated in his evidence that he built his own house some time after the death of Potiah. He also stated that he paid taxes on the land in the name of Barban Seepersad. In cross-examination he said that he gets between three hundred dollars ($300.00) and five hundred dollars ($500.00) for a crop of chinettes. The chinette tree is the only bearing fruit tree he has known on the land.
The defendant Ragoonanan Chandoo, gave evidence. Barban Seepersad was his uncle. It was when Barban died in 1961 that he came to know the plaintiff. He produced a copy of the letters of administration of the estate of Barban Seepersad and a copy of the will of Potiah in which all her real property was devised to him. He said that he had paid house tax in Barban Seepersad's name and produced receipts from 1970 onward, issued to Barban Seepersad for house tax.
There was another set of receipts issue to Ragoonanan Chandoo for house tax dating from 1979. Those however, bear a different assessment number from the receipts in which Barban Seepersad is named as the person who paid. The earlier receipts bear assessment No. A/65 while the later bear assessment No. A/64. Receipts for lease rent from manager, St Augustine Estate made out to Barban Seepersad, were also produced. Chandoo testified that the plaintiff broke down the house left there by Barban Seepersad and erected another house in 1985.
In cross-examination, he admitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial