Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
IN THE WESTERN DIVISION
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL ACTION NO.: HBC 144 of 2015
BETWEEN : SUNIL GUPTA SEN of Wailailai, Ba, Fiji, Businessman.
PLAINTIFF
A N D : RAIDU BHIM KRISHNA of 21006 Tenker Avenue Torrance CA 90501,
United States of America and RAMESH NAIDU of 67 Whitford Road, Hinchinbrook, 2168 NSW Sydney, Australia as executors and trustees of the ESTATE OF KRISHNA RAIDU late of Wailailai, Ba.
DEFENDANTS
Appearances : Mr. Ram Padarath for the plaintiff.
Mr. Eroni Maopa for the defendants.
Hearing : Friday, 28th February, 2020.
Decision : Friday, 01st May, 2020.
D E C I S I O N
(01) The parties in this case invited the court to determine two preliminary issues under Order 33, rule 3 of the High Court Rules, 1988 raised at the pre-trial conference minutes.
(02) The two preliminary issues are;
(A) whether the plaintiff is prevented from instituting this action pursuant to Section 59 (d) of the Indemnity Guarantee and Bailment Act, Cap 232?
(B) whether the action herein is statute barred pursuant to Section 4 of the Limitation Act?
(03) The statement of claim which is as follows sets out sufficiently the facts surrounding this
case from the plaintiff’s point of view as well as the prayers sought by the plaintiff.
The Parties
The Agreements
Conduct of Defendants
Breach by Defendant
18.1 On several occasions before 1st May 2014 attempted to forcefully enter Lot 1 on DP 5563 and to remove and destroy the structures erected by the Plaintiff and goods belonging to the Plaintiff;
18.2 On or about 1st May 2014, the Defendants obtained an order ex-parte from the Magistrate Court at Ba in Civil Action number 22 of 2014 and removed the fences. The said injunction orders were obtained without giving full disclosure to the Magistrates Court; and
18.3 Has refused to recognize the Plaintiffs lawful occupation and ownership of Lot 1 on DP 5563 and have neglected and/or refused to effect a proper registered transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.
Damages
Other Remedies
20.1 The Defendants take all steps necessary, at their own cost, to issue a separate title in the name of the Plaintiff for all the land covered under Lot 1 on DP 5563;
20.2 The Defendants and/or their servants and/or their agents be restrained from selling, alienating or in any way dealing with the land under Lot 1 on DP 5563.
21. The Plaintiff further claims interest on any damages awarded.
WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY:-
(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of and has exclusive right of possession of approximately 1000m² in area of land compromised in CT 20584 and more clearly defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563.
(b) An order requiring the Defendants to take all steps necessary to transfer approximately 1000m² in area of land compromised in CT 20584 and more clearly defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563.
(c) An order requiring the Defendants to take all steps to regularize the subdivision as per Deposited Plan No. 5563 and have issued a separate title over the land defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563 into the name of the Plaintiff.
(d) The Defendants and/or their servants and/or their agents be restrained from selling, alienating or in any way dealing with the land under Lot 1 on DP 5563.
(e) Interest on 10% per annum from the date of the breach to the date of judgment under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death and Interest) Act Cap 29, Laws of Fiji on all sums awarded.
(f) Costs.
(04) The defendants’ defence and counter-claim are stated in their statement of defence and counterclaim which is as follows;
Conduct of the Defendants
Breach by the Defendants
Damages
20. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff is entitled to any interest.
Counter Claim
By way of Counter Claim the Defendants state:
21. The Defendants repeat paragraphs 1 to 20 above.
Particulars of loss
(i) General expense (transportation to and from Ba police station, hiring security officers - $ 250.00
(ii) Fencing materials & Labour - $1,350.00
(iii) Planting along the fence boarder
Coconut trees, bananas etc - $ 300.00
(iv) First survey fee for re defining boundary - $ 600.00
(v) Second survey fee re defining boundary - $1,000.00
(vi) Hiring Bailiff - $ 120.00
(vii) Removal of illegal fence & erecting new ones - $ 630.00
_________
TOTAL $4,250.00
WHEREFORE the Defendants pray:
(a) Special damages in the sum of $4,250.00
(b) General damages for:
(i) Trespass and or Encroachment;
(ii) Frustration and mental distress;
(c) A Declaration that the portion of the estate land in dispute is part of the estate of Krishna Raidu and the Plaintiff has no interest therefrom.
(d) Injunction against the Plaintiff not to interfere whatsoever with the estate land in dispute and or the peaceful enjoyment of the whole estate land.
(e) Interest at the rate of 6% under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Death & Interest) Cap 29.
(f) Further or any other orders the Court deems just and necessary.
(05) As I understand the plaintiff’s pleadings, the alleged contracts for the sale of part of CT 20584, Lot 1 (1000 square meters) on DP 5563 are;
❖ The sale and purchase agreement dated 30/01/1981, between Krishna Raidu (the vendor) and Raj Deo and Deo Narayan (the purchasers) (Annexure SGS-13 referred to in the affidavit of Sunil Gupta Sen sworn on 06/11/2017).
❖ The contract for the sale between Deo Narayan (vendor) and Bal Ram Raidu (purchaser). No contract document was produced to court.
❖ The sale and purchase agreement between Bal Ram Raidu (the vendor) and Shiu Ram Shankar (the purchaser) dated 05.03.1996. (Annexure SGS-14 referred to in the affidavit of Sunil Gupta Sen sworn on 06/11/2017).
❖ The sale and purchase agreement between Kamla Wati and Ajay Kumar Shankar (the vendors) as executor/executrix and trustees of the estate of Shiu Ram and the plaintiff (the purchaser) dated 10th December 2006. (Annexure marked SGS-2 referred to in the affidavit of Sunil Gupta Sen sworn on 06/11/2017).
(06) The plaintiff is relying on the legal principle of assignment. The plaintiff says that a contract is assignable in equity, and may be enforced by the assignee. The plaintiff relies on the House of Lords decision in “Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufactures Ltd (1904) UKHL 456, (date of decision 06.08.1904) and claims interest in the subject property through various sale and purchase agreements mentioned in paragraph (5) above. The argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff is that every subsequent purchaser took an assignment of the initial sale and purchase agreement dated 30/01/1981, (annexure SGS-13).
The plaintiff had taken possession of the land in the year 2006 and had erected a fence and a structure on the land.
(07) By the writ of summons dated 02/09/2015 the plaintiff sued for;
(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of and has exclusive right of possession of approximately 1000m² in area of land compromised in CT 20584 and more clearly defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563.
(b) An order requiring the Defendants to take all steps necessary to transfer approximately 1000m² in area of land compromised in CT 20584 and more clearly defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563.
(c) An order requiring the Defendants to take all steps to regularize the subdivision as per Deposited Plan No. 5563 and have issued a separate title over the land defined and demarcated as Lot 1 on DP 5563 into the name of the Plaintiff.
(08) On the other hand, the defendants argue that there is nothing in writing within the terms of Section 59 (d) of the Indemnity, Guarantee and Bailment Act, Cap 232 to establish that the late Krishna Raidu or his estate (the defendants) sold a portion of land compromised in CT 20584 to the plaintiff. Put simply, the defendants say that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the late Krisna Raidu or his estate (the defendants) to grant a decree of specific performance. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that “the portion of the estate land in dispute is part of the estate of Krishna Raidu and the plaintiff has no interest therefrom” . The defendants argue that the plaintiff has no right or interest to be on the land and seek damages for encroachment and trespassing.
(09) Referring to the sale and purchase agreement dated 30/01/1981 (see paragraph 5 above), the defendants plead that; (reference is made to paragraph 5, 7, 11 and 14 of the statement of defence and counterclaim)
(5). As to paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants admit the content and state the purchase did not go through as there was a default in payment by Deo Narayan and hence breach the agreement.
(7). As to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants state the agreement did not succeed due to default in payment and put the plaintiff to strict proof
(11). As to paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants deny the content and state that due to breach of Sales and Purchase agreement, no one has occupied the said Lot, as the sale was never completed.
(14). As to paragraph 15 of the Statement of Claim, the Defendants deny the content and state that there is absence of sale and purchase agreement or deed whatsoever between the plaintiff and the defendant to give rise to any interest on the estate land. Hence section 59 of the Bailment, Indemnity and Guarantee Act prevents the plaintiff to institute this action. Also the claim by the plaintiff is statute barred pursuant to section 4 of the Limitation Act Cap 35.
(Emphasis added)
(10) However, the plaintiff pleads as follows in paragraph (17) and (19) of the reply to statement of defence and defence to counter claim
(17). In relation to paragraph 22, the Plaintiff confirms that the Estate of Krishna Raidu is the registered proprietor of Certificate of Title Number 20584.
(19). In relation to paragraph 25, the Plaintiff denies the contents and states that the Plaintiff acquired lawful assignment of a sale and purchase agreement dated 30th January, 1981, which entitled the Plaintiff to take possession sometime in the year 2006.
(Emphasis added)
(11) Let me turn to the first issue based on contract of sale.
(12) It is common ground on the pleadings that at the time the sale and purchase agreement was entered into between late Krishna Raidu (the vendor) and Raj Deo and Deo Narayan (the purchasers) on 30/01/1981, and at all times subsequently and until todate, the title to the whole land comprised in CT 20584 remained in the name of Krishna Raidu. What is crucial to note is that late Krishna Raidu has not executed a document of transfer in the name of Raj Deo and Deo Narayan. There was no disposition of land to Raj Deo and Deo Narayan. The defendants allege that the purchasers Raj Deo and Deo Narayan did not settle the residue of the purchase price within the stipulated time and as a result the ownership of the land did not pass to them and the contract for the sale dated 30.01.1981 was kept in suspense, or held in abeyance . The plaintiff says that the residue of the purchase price has been paid.
(13) Be that as it may, it is common ground on the pleadings that the legal title to the property, Lot 01 on DP 5563 in CT 20584 was not transferred or transmitted into the names of Raj Deo and Deo Narayan. To date, the estate of late Krishna Raidu (defendants) are the registered proprietors of the land comprised in CT 20584. Raj Deo and Deo Narayan need to have legal title to the property transferred or transmitted into their names to sell the property to Bal Ram Raidu. Raj Deo and Deo Narayan are not the registered proprietors of Lot 1 on DP 5563 in CT 20584. They do not have a registered document of title to Lot 1 on DP 5563 in CT 20584. Therefore, Deo Narayan cannot sell Lot 1 on DP 5563 in CT 20584 to Bal Ram Raidu. How can Deo Narayan sell Lot 1 on DP 5563 in CT 20584 to Bal Ram Raidu without having legal title to the property? How could Deo Narayan enter into any disposition of Lot 1 on DP 5563 in CT 20584 by way of a contract for the sale of the land with Bal Ram Raidu without first having registered title to the land as prima facie evidence of his unfettered right to deal with the land as he pleases? How could Deo Narayan convey non-existent title to the property to Bal Ram Raidu? I hold that there was no legally binding/enforceable dealing between Deo Narayan and Bal Ram Raidu. The doctrine of ‘equitable conversion’ rests on valid, legally binding and legally enforceable contracts. The doctrine of equitable conversion serves no useful purpose in this case and it breaks down wholly and becomes a perfectly useless fiction leading to no results by reason of Deo Narayan’s non-existent title to the property. The vendor Deo Narayan holds no title to the property. That being the case, how could the vendor Deo Narayan convey land to the vendee Bal Ram Raidu? How could the vendor Deo Narayan give the title to vendee Bal Ram Raidu ? How could the vendee Bal Ram Raidu receive the conveyance because of vendor’s non-existent title to the property? The vendor Deo Narayan is not in a position of a donee of the property because he does not have legal title to the property. That being the case, then how could the property held subject to an equitable obligation? The vendee Bal Ram Raidu has no equitable title to the property or to a conveyance of the land. Therefore, what is in equity to pass to the assignees of the contract for sale? Besides, the plaintiff cannot be in a better position than Bal Ram Raidu who does not have an equitable title to the land.
(14) In the circumstances, I cannot help feeling quite convinced that all the agreements entered subsequently ( see paragraph (5) above) in the circumstances hereabove stated are not legally binding because there is no chain of legal title to the property. The result is that the plaintiff cannot assert a right to the title in the land under the contract of sale made between him and Kamla Wati and Ajay Kumar Shankar (the vendors) as executor/executrix and trustees of the estate of Shiu Ram dated 10th December 2006. The equity would never intervene once an illegal purpose had been carried out. The equity does not intervene to grant a decree of specific performance in this case because equitable conversion by contracts have not taken place due to the vendor’s (Deo Narayan’s ) non-existent legal title to the property. It is true as pointed out by counsel for the defendants there is no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the late Krishna Raidu or his estate (the defendants) to give rise to any interest on the estate land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no contractual right against late Krishna Raidu or his estate (the defendants).
(15) Therefore, it is a complete misstatement of law to say that every subsequent purchaser took an assignment of the initial sale and purchase agreement dated 30/01/1981, (Annexure SGS-13). The legal principle of assignment does not arise upon the facts of this case because the property does not have a chain of title. I find great difficulty in finding anything of benefit to the plaintiff in the House of Lords decision in “Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufactures Ltd. (supra).
So in the end, I am driven to conclude that counsel for the defendants is right.
(16) In view of the approach I have adopted, I do not think it necessary to deal with the defendants’ second legal argument based on the Limitation Act.
ORDERS
2. The defendants’ are entitled to costs and the costs are reserved for a later decision.
3. Mention on 15th May, 2020 to fix a hearing date for the defendants’ counterclaim.
..........................
Jude Nanayakkara
[Judge]
At Lautoka
Friday, 01st May, 2020
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2020/293.html