DEREK ACHONG
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A father and son from Cunupia have won a lawsuit against a mother and son from Debe over control of a property.
Delivering a judgment on Wednesday, High Court Judge Devindra Rampersad upheld Bhagwandass and Vashudev Maharaj’s case against Shirley Persad and her son Roger Sukhu.
The lawsuit related to a property located along SS Erin Road in Debe, which was owned by the mother and son.
The Maharajs claimed that in September 2017, they agreed to purchase the property from Persad and Sukhu, who were experiencing difficulties paying their mortgage.
They claimed that they paid $654,471.88 to the bank Persad and Sukhu owed and agreed to forgive a $66,000 debt they owed prior in exchange for the property.
They claimed Persad and Sukhu signed handwritten and typewritten agreements and a memorandum of transfer was executed.
However, the transfer could not be registered as Persad and Sukhu barred the Maharajs’ valuators from entering the property to inspect it for a valuation report.
The lawsuit seeking to enforce the sale agreement was filed in late 2022 after the parties failed to resolve their dispute through negotiations.
In their defence, Persad and Sukhu claimed that they never agreed to the sale of the property as they believed that they were obtaining a loan from the Maharajs to satisfy their obligations to the bank.
They also contended that the memorandum of transfer executed by the Maharajs’ lawyer was obtained by fraudulent or deceptive means as they pointed to the fact that the money paid by the Maharajs was a gross undervalue of the property, which they estimated to be valued at $3 million.
In deciding the case, Justice Rampersad noted that while he recommended that a valuation be done to assist with determining the case, Persad and Sukhu only reproduced a report late in the proceedings and their lawyer did not follow the correct procedure for it to be tendered into evidence.
Stating that Persad and Sukhu were not reliable witnesses as they departed materially and significantly from their pleaded case, Justice Rampersad said he believed the Maharajs version of the events over theirs.
“All in all, notwithstanding the time that has gone by since the signing of the agreements and the memorandum of transfer, the court sees nothing before it to cause it to refrain from granting the reliefs claimed by the claimants,” Justice Rampersad said.
He pointed out that they admitted the Maharajs paid the money and they retained control over the property without repaying the father and son.
“The claimants have not received any interest on their money paid over to the bank and have received no income from the property nor have they gotten any benefit,” Justice Rampersad said.
He ordered Persad and Sukhu to surrender the property to the Maharajs and to pay them for all the rents and profits they obtained from it, less their legitimate expenses including land and building taxes and utilities.
He also ordered the mother and son to pay any penalty the Maharajs may incur from the late registration of the transfer.
They were also ordered to pay $14,000 in legal costs.
As part of his judgment, Justice Rampersad sought to give guidance to attorneys on their conduct when acting for a vendor and purchaser in land sales.
He recommended that such transactions should only be conducted by the same attorney if they advise the purchaser to seek independent legal advice and they agree to sign a certificate waiving their right to do so.
The Maharajs were represented by Yaseen Ahmed, and Tara Lutchman. Persad and Sukhu were represented by Jeevan Rampersad.
