Venicia Mohammed Bulger v Aleem Rattan

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Sieuchand, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 152
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2022-03888

Venicia Mohammed Bulger

and

Aleem Rattan

Sieuchand, J.

Suit No.: CV2022-03888

High Court

Appearances:

For the Claimant— Zenobia Campbell-James, instructed by Avian Joseph of DS Daniel and Associates.

For the Defendant— Varude Badrie-Maharaj and Yasseen Ali, instructed by Ronald Gaya Sammy, Tara Badrie-Maharaj and Yasser S. Ali.

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Sieuchand, J.

1 Molly Mohammed, also called Molly Phartmar Persad, also called Molly Phartmar Mohammed, also called Molly Persad (“the Deceased”) departed this life on July 31st 2022, at the age of 87 years. At the time of her death, she was a widow, her husband Balkaran Persad having died on March 17th 2014. At the time of her death, the Deceased had no children. Prior to her death, the Deceased executed a will dated August 29th 2017 (“the 2017 Will”), the contents of which are unchallenged. By the 2017 Will:

• a. The Deceased appointed two of her nieces, Shaffina Rattan (“Shaffina”) and Yasmin Mohammed also called Yasmin Mohamed also called Yasmin Gopeechand (“Yasmin”), as her executrices;

• b. The Deceased bequeathed her property situate at 72 St. Cecilia Road in Tunapuna (“the Deceased's Property”) to three of her nieces, being Shaffina, Yasmin and the Claimant in these proceedings;

• c. The Deceased bequeathed the remainder of her estate to Shaffina and Yasmin.

2 Subsequent to the Deceased's death, the Defendant, Shaffina's son, presented, acted in reliance upon and sought to admit to probate a document purporting to be a will made by the Deceased and dated March 15th 2022 (“the 2022 Will”), in which the Defendant was appointed as the sole executor of the 2022 Will and he was named as the sole beneficiary of the Deceased's estate.

THE HISTORY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS

3 The Claimant commenced these proceedings on October 12th 2022, by filing a claim form and an application for injunctive relief to restrain the Defendant from taking certain actions in relation to the Deceased's Property.

4 The Claimant obtained an ex-parte order on October 13th 2022, appointing her Administratrix ad Litem and Ad Colligenda Bona for the purpose of preserving the Deceased's Estate and commencing legal proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant and the Defendant ultimately entered into a consent order dated May 2nd 2023, in relation to the injunction application.

5 The Claimant, who ordinarily resides in the city of Boston in the State of Massachusetts in the United States of America, filed a statement of case on July 7th 2023, whereby she sought the following reliefs:

• a. An order pronouncing the 2017 Will as being the last will and testament of the Deceased;

• b. An order pronouncing against the validity of the 2022 Will;

• c. An order compelling the Defendant to withdraw his application for a grant of probate of the 2022 Will;7 and

• d. An order that the Claimant be permitted to admit the 2017 Will to probate in solemn form.

6 The grounds upon which the Claimant relies in order to support her entitlement to these reliefs are, in summary, as follows:

• a. The 2022 Will is a forgery and likely backdated;

• b. The contents of the 2022 Will do not reflect the Deceased's testamentary intentions;

• c. The 2022 Will was executed, if at all, under suspicious circumstances;

• d. The Deceased lacked sufficient mental capacity to give instructions for the 2022 Will at the material time; and

• e. At the time of the making of the 2022 Will, the Deceased was acting under the undue influence of the Defendant.

7 By his defence and counterclaim filed on July 24th 2023, the Defendant denied that the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs which she sought and counterclaimed for the following reliefs:

• a. A declaration that the 2022 Will was duly executed pursuant to the Wills and Probate Act;

• b. An order pronouncing against the force and validity of the 2017 Will;

• c. A declaration that the Defendant has the right of priority to continue with his application for a grant of probate of the 2022 Will;

• d. An order that the Defendant be granted undisturbed and exclusive possession of the Deceased's Property;

• e. An order that the Defendant be granted all assets forming part of the Deceased's estate which are in the Claimant's possession;

• f. An order that the Defendant be permitted to prove the 2022 Will in solemn form;

• g. An order compelling the Claimant to withdraw the caveat lodged in relation to the 2022 Will; and

• h. Costs.

8 The grounds upon which the Defendant resists the Claimant's claim and relies upon in order to support his entitlement to the reliefs for which he counterclaims are, in summary, as follows:

• a. The 2022 Will is the Deceased's genuine last will and testament;

• b. The 2022 Will was duly executed;

• c. The Defendant at all material times had sufficient testamentary capacity to make the 2022 Will;

• d. The 2022 Will was the product of the Deceased's freely exercised intentions;

• e. The Deceased was of sound mind and body at the time of the making of the 2022 Will; and

• f. The 2022 Will was not the product of any undue influence on the Deceased.

9 The Claimant filed a reply and defence to counterclaim, which in essence joined issue with the Defendant on his counterclaim.

THE PLEADED FACTS

10 The Claimant alleges that she and the Deceased shared a close bond, that the Deceased and her husband wanted to adopt her, and that the Deceased and her husband referred to the Claimant as their “daughter” in public. The Defendant denies these assertions.

11 The Claimant alleges that the Deceased and her husband regularly visited the Claimant and her family in Boston and eventually began residing with them for some 20 years before the Deceased and her husband returned to Trinidad. The Defendant admits that the Deceased and her husband lived in Boston, but alleges that they lived in a separate residence from the Claimant, and at no time did the Claimant stay at the Deceased's home, where she was treated like a daughter.

12 It is not in dispute that when the Deceased and her husband returned to Trinidad, they lived at the Deceased's Property, on which sat the Deceased's house (“the Deceased's House”) which eventually comprised of a three-bedroom upstairs portion where the Deceased lived following the death of her husband, and two apartments downstairs.

13 The Claimant alleges that she maintained regular telephone contact with the Deceased and visited her in Trinidad from time to time. The Defendant denies this and says that the Claimant spoke to the Deceased by telephone but not regularly on a weekly basis, and that the Claimant only visited this jurisdiction twice since 2005.

14 The Claimant alleges that the Deceased told her that she would be leaving the Deceased's Property to Shaffina, Yasmin and the Claimant. The Defendant denies this and puts the Claimant to strict proof of this.

15 The Claimant alleges that the Deceased fell and injured herself in late June 2022, as a consequence of which she was forced to reside at Shaffina's home at LP 13 Dookiesingh Street in St. Augustine. The Defendant denies this and avers that the Deceased fell sometime in May 2022, and that when she so fell, she called the Defendant and told him this, but the Deceased was never hospitalised. The Defendant also states that the Deceased was taken to the St. Augustine Private Hospital for an MRI scan in July 2022 after she began experiencing back pain. Following this, the Deceased was not bedridden, but she required assistance, obtained from the Defendant, his parents and his wife, until her death on July 31st 2022.

16 It is not in dispute that the Claimant last spoke with the Deceased on July 30th 2022, the night before she passed away. The Claimant alleges that, on that occasion, the Deceased complained about wanting to return to her home as she was worried about the security of her personal property, including cash and high-value items, which she kept at her home because of her distrust of banks. The Claimant also claimed that the Deceased told her that she felt compromised by being forced to rely on the assistance of others to care for her while residing at another person's home. While the Defendant admits that the Deceased was an independent person up until the days immediately preceding her death, he denies and puts the Claimant to strict proof of her conversation with the Deceased.

17 The Claimant alleges that none of the Deceased's relatives told her that the Deceased died, and that she only learned of the Deceased's death from a friend of the family living in the United States on August 1st 2022. The Claimant further alleged that the Deceased had by then been buried. The Claimant made arrangements with her family and came to Trinidad on August 7th 2022. The Defendant says that the Deceased was a devout Muslim and was buried as soon as possible on August 2nd 2022, in accordance with Sharia Law, since August 1st 2022, was a public holiday.

18 The Claimant believes that the Deceased left money with Shaffina for her funeral arrangements because Shaffina had access to one of the Deceased's accounts. The Claimant also believes that the Defendant took over the funeral arrangements contrary to the Deceased's wishes. The Defendant denies these beliefs and asserts that Shaffina was a joint holder of a Unit Trust Account with the Deceased, which the Deceased closed in late 2021. The Defendant says that the Deceased's funeral expenses were borne by him and Shaffina. The Defendant also states that he accessed a national insurance funeral grant and Shaffina paid for the Deceased's “40 days” memorial service, and that all rituals following the Deceased's death were done in accordance with her Muslim faith and her wishes.

19 The Claimant alleges that she went to Shaffina's home and asked for the keys to the Deceased's House, as the Claimant was accustomed to staying there while in Trinidad. The Claimant also stated...