A High Court Judge has resolved a long-standing dispute with a company, a bailiff, a widow and a businessman over control of a 7.7-acre parcel of land in Mayaro.
Delivering a judgment on Wednesday, Justice Ricky Rahim upheld a lawsuit brought by property holding company Syamrish Holding Limited.
Syamrish, who holds a 97-acre plot, sued Clarissa Rodulfo, bailiff Ramkarran Ramparas, and Travis Rattansingh, claiming that they had unlawfully appropriated part of its land holding.
According to the evidence, in 1981, Rudolfo’s husband, Julian Boodhan, purchased a substantial 63-acre neighbouring plot of land.
When he died in late 2017, Boodhan gifted the land, including the portion claimed by Syamrish, to his wife, who later sold part of it, including the disputed portion, to Ramparas.
Ramparas later sold the land to Rattansingh.
Ramparas and Rattansingh filed a counterclaim alleging that they had a proper title to the land.
Rattansingh also filed an ancillary claim seeking an order that Ramparas indemnify him against any liability if Syamrish was successful, as he (Rattansingh) claimed that Ramparas never informed him of the property dispute when he induced him to make the purchase.
Rodulfo did not defend the lawsuit but served as a witness for Rattansingh.
In determining the case, Justice Rahim considered deeds and survey plans that were presented by the parties and ruled that the disputed portion belonged to the company.
Noting that Boodhan had accepted that he only held 63 acres when he gifted the land to his wife, Justice Rahim said: “It follows, therefore, that the disputed lands could not have formed part of that 63 acres, having regard to the calculated acreage, when the disputed land area is included.”
Justice Rahim also rejected the defendants’ counterclaim that Boodhan and Rodulfo obtained the land through adverse possession, as he noted that they did not exercise sufficient and unimpeded control of the land to extinguish Syamrish’s title.
He also noted the company, through its director Bickram Ramnarine, broke its period of occupation by initiating the property dispute with them.
“The inference therefore is that after the fight put up by Boodhan from 2012 to the date of his death, Rodulfo essentially did nothing on the land that would amount to acts of occupation and possession and the court so finds,” Justice Rahim said.
Dealing with Rattansingh’s claim against Ramparas, Justice Rahim found that Ramparas withheld pertinent information he knew about the dispute when attempting to complete the sale.
However, he still dismissed it (ancillary claim), as he found that Rattansingh was negligent in failing to do his own due diligence checks through his lawyers.
“While encouraged by Ramparas, who appeared anxious to obtain a sale and remove himself from the problems associated with the land, Rattansingh, whether because of ill advice or otherwise, equally failed to make his own proper enquiries and so it cannot be said that he was solely influenced or induced into buying by Ramparas,” he said.
Justice Rahim ordered Ramparas and Rattansingh to pay the company damages for trespass that would be assessed by a High Court Master at a later date.
Rattansingh was also ordered to surrender possession of the disputed parcel to the company.
Ramparas, Rattansingh, and Rodulfo were ordered to pay the company’s legal costs for the litigation.
The company was represented by Kelvin Ramkissoon, Antonella Narinesingh, Akshay Boodram, and Shivanna Ramkissoon.
Rattansingh was represented by Roger Kawalsingh, and Tynneille Tuitt, while Asaf Hosein represented Ramparas.
