Sookdeo Deousaran v Maltee Persad and Pamela Persad

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 22 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 149
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2023-03111; CV2023-03247

Sookdeo Deousaran

and

Maltee Persad and Pamela Persad

James, J.

Suit No.: CV2023-03111; CV2023-03247

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Carlton A George, Attorney at Law for the Claimant.

Ms. Priya Ramnarine, Attorney at Law for the Defendants.

James, J.

1 This case concerns a dispute over possession of two parcels of land situated in Couva. The Claimant, Sookdeo Deousaran, seeks recovery of possession of the lands and damages for trespass against the Defendants, Maltee Persad and Pamela Persad. The primary issue for determination is whether the Claimant holds superior title to the lands and is entitled to possession, or whether the Defendants have acquired possessory title by virtue of adverse possession.

BACKGROUND

2 The Claimant commenced these proceedings by Fixed Date Claim Form and Affidavit filed on 21st August 2023 and 30th August 2023, respectively, against the First and Second Defendants. At the First Case Management Conference, the Court ordered that the matters be consolidated and gave directions for the filing of pleadings. The Claimant filed his Statement of Case on 10th November 2023.

3 The Claimant's case is that the disputed lands were owned by his parents, the late Deosaran and Evelyn Deousaran, pursuant to a Deed dated 25th October 1939 and registered as Deed No. 5354 of 1939. His father died on 30th December 1980, and his mother on 9th April 1998. By Deed of Assent dated 1st May 1998 and registered as DE199809623057, the Claimant alleges that he became seized and possessed of the lands, as described in the Eighth Part of the First Schedule of the said Deed.

4 The Claimant pleads that it was not until on or about 2nd December 2020 that he first observed the Defendants, or either of them, entering upon the two lots of land and fencing same for the first time.

5 Following this observation, the Claimant retained a land surveyor, Mr. Hugo Sumarsingh, to survey the disputed lands. He subsequently made a report to the Couva Police Station on 10th March 2021.

6 The Claimant denies that the Defendants were ever in possession of the lands. He contends that any acts carried out by the Defendants on the said lands were minimal and did not amount to acts of possession, but were instead acts of ameliorative waste, such as the creation of fire breaks or clearing vegetation, and not indicative of control or dominion over the property.

7 He further pleads that, if (which is denied) the Defendants or their predecessors constructed cesspits on the land, such acts were acts of waste and not indicative of possession. The Claimant also contends that, if there was any entry, it was not done nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, but rather was surreptitious, under the cover of thick vegetation.

8 It is therefore the Claimant's case that he is the lawful title holder of the lands and that the Defendants are trespassers who wrongfully entered and fenced the property.

9 The Claimant seeks the following reliefs:

• 1. An order for recovery of possession of two lots forming part of Ten lots (being portion of Three acres originally conveyed by John Occan to Petamsingh and abutting on the North upon lands of Madam Johnson on the Sought upon lands of Rampertaub Maraj and upon lands of the Government (sic) School on the East upon the Public Road and on the West upon lands of Pragg and upon lands Miguel Montes being the parcel fourthly described herein as lands of Sookoo, Paptow Bissoon and Chokooree and Pragg and other lands of Miguel Montes) all and singular that piece or parcel of land situate in Ward of Couva being the Eight Part of the land described in the FIRST SCHEDULE to the Deed dated the 1st May 1998 and Registered as DE199809623057 in the Protocols for the Year 1998 in the Land Registry of the Registrar's Department, the two lots (being part of Ten Lots being portion of Three acres originally conveyed by John Occan to Petamsingh and abutting on the North upon lands of Madam Johnson on the South upon lands of Rampertaub Maraj and upon lands of Madam Johnson on the South upon lands of Rampertaub Maraj and upon lands of the Government (sic) School on the East upon the Public road and on the West upon lands of Pragg and upon lands Miguel Montes being the parcel fourthly described herein as lands of Sookoo, Paptow Bissoon and Chokooree and Pragg and other lands of Miguel Montes) the First lot measuring 511.1 metres squared and marked “D1” on the survey hereto annexed and bounded on the North by lands said to belong to MALTEE PERSAD on the South by lands of Deousaran (also marked as “D2” on the survey plan) on the East by a Road Reserve and on the West by Lands of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church. The Second Lot measuring 625.0 metres squared and marked “D2” on the annexed survey plan and bounded on the North by Lands of Deousaran, on the South and East by a Road Reserve and on the West by lands of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church or how or howsoever the same be delineated or described and more particularly described as D1 and D2 in the survey plan filled herein.

• 2. An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by herself, her servants and/or agents from entering or remaining on the said lands

• 3. Damages for Trespass

• 4. Costs

10 By Defence and Counterclaim filed on 20th December 2023, the Defendants deny the Claimant's case and assert that the lands in dispute do not belong to the Claimant, as they are not the same lands referenced in Deed DE199809623057. The Defendants further contend that they are entitled to possession by virtue of adverse possession.

11 The Defendants plead that their grandfather and father purchased Lot No. 54 and thereafter began clearing and maintaining the surrounding lands, including parcels D1 and D2. Their father allegedly cultivated crops, planted fruit trees, and constructed various structures on the land over the years.

12 These structures include:

• a. A toilet on D2 around 1970;

• b. A cesspit on D1 around 1990;

• c. A shed on D1 between the 1980s and 1990s, later converted into an outdoor toilet and bath in 2007;

• d. A concrete sink on D1 around 1980;

• e. Another shed in the middle of D1 around 1990;

• f. An outdoor washroom on D2 was used until 1990.

13 The Defendants allege continued use and occupation after their father's death in 2009, including the construction of a new cesspit on D1 in 2015 and, in February 2021, the erection of a fence along what they claim was a pre-existing boundary marked by a line of trees.

14 In their counterclaim, the Defendants seek the following reliefs:

• 1. A declaration that the Defendants are the lawful occupiers of those parcels of land known and called plot No 53 comprising 1 lot and plot No 52 comprising 581.6m ² bounded on the North by lands of Seenath Pooransingh on the South by lot No B1 on the West by lands of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church and on the East by lot No 54 as well as lot B1 comprising 848.6m ² and bounded on the North by partially by lands of the Defendants and Lot 52 on the South by Estate Trace on the West by lands of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church and on the East by the said Estate Trace approximately 10m wide as described in the survey plan dated April 9th, 2021, hereinbefore referred to as exhibit B

• 2. Damages

• 3. Interest

• 4. Costs; and

• 5. Such further and or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.

15 The Claimant filed a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim on 30th January, 2024, whereby the Claimant denied the Counterclaim.

DOES THE CLAIMANT HAVE THE REQUISITE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY?

16 The first issue for determination is whether the Claimant holds sufficient title to the disputed land to entitle him to bring an action for possession.

17 The Defendants contend that the Claimant does not own the disputed land. They assert that the descriptions contained in the Deeds relied upon by the Claimant, particularly Deed No. DE199809623057, does not correspond with the lands in dispute. They rely on the expert reports and survey plans prepared by Mr. Gokool and Mr. Deonanan, both licensed land surveyors, to support the contention that the Deed relates to different lands.

18 Accordingly, the Defendants submit that the Claimant has failed to prove that the lands described in his Deed include the lands presently in dispute.

19 It is settled law, however, that a Claimant in an action for possession need not prove an indefeasible title. The applicable principle is that the Claimant must show a better title than the Defendant. In Ocean Estates Ltd. v. Pinder [1969] 2 A.C. 19 at 25, Lord Diplock explained:

“Where questions of title to land arise in litigation, the court is concerned only with the relative strengths of the titles proved by the rival claimants. If party A can prove a better title than party B, he is entitled to succeed notwithstanding that C may have a better title than A, if C is neither a party to the action nor a person by whose authority B is in possession or occupation of the land. It follows that, as against a defendant whose entry upon the land was made as a trespasser, a plaintiff who can prove any documentary title to the land is entitled to recover possession of the land unless debarred under the Real Property Limitation Act by the effluxion of the 20-year period of continuous and exclusive possession by the trespasser.

In the present case, where the defendant made no attempt to prove any documentary title in himself or in any third party by whose authority he was in occupation of the land it would have been sufficient for the plaintiffs to rely upon the conveyance of the land to themselves of March 30, 1950; for where a person has dealt in land by conveying an interest in it to another person there is a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that he was entitled to the estate in the land which he purported to convey.”

20 In the present...