Thomas Dass v Adrian Lordshaughn and Shawn Lordshaughn

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 20 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 78
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2025-00969

Thomas Dass

and

Adrian Lordshaughn and Shawn Lordshaughn

James, J.

Suit No.: CV2025-00969

High Court

Mr. Carlon McLeod and Mr. Rijar Rajcoomar, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant.

Mr. Lemuel Murphy and Ms. Keishel Grant, Attorneys at Law for the Defendant.

James, J.

BACKGROUND

1 By Fixed Date Claim Form filed on 27th March 2025, the Claimants, Thomas Dass and Ruby Hansraj, seek an order for possession and recovery of possession of the property situate at #22 Saddle Road, Maraval, from the First and Second Defendants, Adrian and Sean Lordshaughn. They further seek an injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, remaining on, or interfering with the Claimants' occupation of the premises, as well as damages for trespass, interest, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

2 The Fixed Date Claim Form was supported by the Affidavit of the First Claimant.

PRINCIPAL AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS DASS

3 Thomas Dass deposes that he became one of four joint tenants of the property at #22 Saddle Road, Maraval, by Deed No. 12972 in 1988. He notes that he and his brother Michael were the primary siblings who secured the $230,000.00 mortgage to build the current two-storey house because they were permanently employed at the time. Following the deaths of Michael Dass on 1st April 2021 and Patricia Dass on 17th April 2021, Thomas asserts that the property interest automatically devolved to himself and Ruby Hansraj as the only surviving joint tenants.

4 Thomas testifies that while the Defendants, the son and grandson of Patricia Dass, had been permitted to reside at the property, this permission was formally revoked by letter dated 25th January 2022. He details that after an all-parties conference in March 2022, he and Ruby agreed to a final extension for the defendants to vacate by 31st December 2022, provided they maintained the property and kept the peace. Correspondence between the parties' attorneys, annexed as Exhibit “T.D.7”, confirms that the defendants were hard-pressed to leave within six months and requested the year-end extension to avoid homelessness.

5 However, Thomas states that the defendants failed to vacate by the agreed deadline. He references a final notice issued on 21st April 2023 (annexed as Exhibit “T.D.8”), which demanded the defendants deliver up vacant possession by 28th April 2023 or face High Court proceedings. Thomas alleges that the defendants' continued occupation has forced him to live elsewhere and pay a monthly rent of $2,500.00, while the defendants reside in his home for free. Furthermore, Thomas deposes (specifically in paragraph 24 of this affidavit) that his personal bedroom at the property was tampered with and that his belongings, legal paperwork, and jewellery were stolen or removed by the defendants. He concludes by praying that the Court grants the reliefs sought so that he may return to the home he built and save money as a retired pensioner.

PRINCIPAL AFFIDAVIT OF RUBY HANSRAJ

6 Ruby Hansraj sets out the history of the property at #22 Saddle Road, Maraval, explaining that she and her three siblings, Michael, Patricia, and Thomas, became joint tenants of the land in 1988. She resided there until 1995 and notes that her sister, Gloria, lived downstairs while the defendants, Adrian and Sean Lordshaughn (the son and grandson of Patricia), eventually occupied the upstairs. Following the deaths of Michael and Patricia in April 2021, Ruby and Thomas became the sole surviving joint tenants. She testifies that while the defendants initially lived there with her permission, she revoked this on 25th January 2022, via a formal letter. After a family meeting in March 2022, she granted them an extension until 31st December 2022, on the conditions that they maintain the property and avoid becoming a nuisance. However, despite further final notices in April 2023, the defendants refused to vacate, leading to the current claim for possession.

PRINCIPAL AFFIDAVIT OF SEAN LORDSHAUGHN

7 In the Principal Affidavit of Sean Lordshaughn filed on 3rd June 2025, Sean deposes that as early as 1985, his mother, Patricia Dass, informed him of her intention to purchase the property with her siblings to ensure his future inheritance and home security. This understanding, he asserts, was well known and accepted by all family members.

8 Details of Promises and Assurances where he was promised a permanent right to the home include

• • December 2000: When Sean expressed a desire to move out and rent elsewhere, he claims his mother and his uncle Michael gave him the largest bedroom on the first floor as an incentive to stay. He asserts that the claimants, Thomas and Ruby, were aware of this and did not object.

• • December 2005: After returning from university in England at the family's request, Sean was counselled by Ruby Hansraj to remain at the property, with her allegedly assuring him that it would always be his home and something he could pass on to his son.

• • May 2021: Following the deaths of Michael and Patricia, a family meeting was held where Sean alleges Ruby Hansraj stated that she and Thomas had no intention of returning to the property. He claims she encouraged him and his cousin Mark to manage the property co-operatively, leading Sean to believe he had inherited his mother's share.

• • March 2023: Sean alleges that Thomas Dass verbally told him to disregard legal documents bearing Ruby's name, claiming that Thomas did not deal with her lawyers and that there was no real need for Sean to vacate.

9 Sean admits that Thomas and Ruby are the current legal title owners according to the law of joint tenancy. However, he deposes that he was unaware of the legal effect of the joint tenancy and the Right of Survivorship until after the family meeting in May 2021. He asserts that he only learned that the property structure was not a tenancy-in-common after challenging Michael Dass's will. Sean maintains that had he known the property was held jointly and that his interest could be terminated, he would not have made the extensive renovations he conducted. He argues that, based on the family's promises and his financial contributions, he has acquired an equitable interest in the property.

10 Sean provides a detailed breakdown of the $256,000.00 he estimates he has expended on the property over the years. His contributions include:

• • Financial Contributions ($196,000.00): This includes $150,000.00 given directly to Michael and Patricia for household expenses up to their deaths; $30,000.00 towards mortgage repayments and home insurance up to 2016; $11,000.00 for general home repairs; and $5,000.00 for new furniture and appliances.

• • Upgrades and Beautification (May–Dec 2021): Following the May 2021 meeting, Sean spent money on a home security system ($7,000), replaced five interior doors ($7,000), repainted the upstairs interior ($4,000) and polished the terrazzo flooring ($2,500).

• • Ongoing Maintenance (2022–2025): He estimates spending $50,000.00 on power washing, gardening (at a rate of $400 per month), and plumbing repairs.

• • Historical Repairs: Between 2011 and 2021, he claims to have funded significant structural repairs, including roof replacements, front gate repairs, and the installation of a new front window.

11 Beyond direct monetary spending, Sean deposes that between 2003 and 2012, he performed unpaid graphic design and ICT work for Michael Dass, with the understanding that the income generated from his labour was used to pay the mortgage and maintain the property. He also assisted his mother with her various business ventures, such as selling fried peanuts and insurance, to further support the household.

AFFIDAVIT OF RUBY HANSRAJ (RESPONSE)

12 In an Affidavit in Response filed on 15t December 2025, Ruby clarifies that the current house was built in 1988 following a $230,000 mortgage taken by the four siblings. She alleges that Patricia ceased contributing to the mortgage early on, leaving Michael to cover her share. Ruby categorically denies giving Sean any assurances regarding ownership or a permanent right to stay. She refutes the claims regarding Gloria's possessions, stating that only old or broken items were removed. She further highlights the volatile nature of the current situation, noting that her brother Mark obtained protection orders against both defendants in August 2023 due to their conduct.

AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS DASS (RESPONSE)

13 In an Affidavit in Response filed on 15th December 2025, Thomas Dass disputes the defendants' version of events, stating that he and Michael were the only ones permanently employed and thus secured the loan for the house in 1988. He asserts he was forced to move out in 2016 due to the defendants' behaviour and currently pays $2,500 in monthly rent elsewhere while they live for free in the home he built. He denies ever promising the property to the defendants or telling them to ignore legal documents. Thomas further alleges that the defendants removed his personal belongings, saved money, and legal paperwork from his bedroom. Now a retired pensioner, he states his primary wish is to return to his home to save money.

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF SEAN LORDSHAUGHN

14 Sean Lordshaughn filed a supplemental affidavit on 7th January 2026 to correct names used in his Affidavit and to annex documentary evidence he could not previously access. He provides copies of the Deed of Mortgage and bank cheques signed by Patricia to prove her financial contributions. He also annexes the Grant of Representation for Michael Dass's estate, which was granted to him. Finally, he includes Google Map images from 2013 and 2025 to provide visual evidence of the roof repairs and replacements he claims to have funded.

AFFIDAVIT OF GLORIA HERNANDEZ

15 Gloria Hernandez, sister to the claimants, deposes in support of the defendants, stating that Sean has lived at the property since his...