Ahmad v Sahadan
| Jurisdiction | Guyana |
| Judge | Harper, J. |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 1979 |
| Neutral Citation | GY 1979 HC 9 |
| Docket Number | No. 1203 of 1973 |
| Court | High Court (Guyana) |
| Date | 25 May 1979 |
High Court
Harper, J.
No. 1203 of 1973
Mr. E. Luckhoo instructed by Mr. Zaman Sankar for the plaintiff.
Mr. F. Ramprashad S.C. instructed by Mr. H.B. Fraser for the defendant.
Real property - Landlord and tenant — Licence — Plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant from trespassing on a certain piece of land with a building thereon and damages to have brought the house on that piece of land from the plaintiff and sought to declaration that she was the lawful owner of the house — Defendant did not buy the house but was permitted to stay there rent free — Defendant merely a licensee permitted to stay on the property with reasonable notice to quit.
The plaintiff, through her attorney, Nazeer Ahmad Khan, her son, seeks an injunction against the defendant and her servants and/or agents from trespassing on a certain piece of land at lot 2A Cornelia Ida with a building thereon and damages for such trespass since August, 1972. The defendant denies the trespass in as much as she has bought a house on that piece of land from the plaintiff in or about 1959; and seeks a declaration that she is the lawful owner of that house at lot 2A Cornelia Ida.
In 1969 while Sarah Ahmad, who died in September, 1973 lived at Ruimveldt obtained a lease, for a property at lot 2A Public Road, Cornelia Ida. The land was leased from The Demerara Company Limited on 30 th January, 1961, as evidenced by Exhibit “C”. The rental was six dollars and twenty-four cents ($6.24) per annum. Exhibits “D1” to “D3” are receipts which verify the payment of the lease. I have observed that the name on those three receipts are for one Shira instead of Sarah Ahmad. Nonetheless, I conclude that those receipts pertained to the land under review.
In February 1961 the plaintiff bought from one Ghanie a house situate at Cornelia Ida. On the memorandum and its related documents it is not stated that the house was on lot 2A Cornelia Public Road, but from the evidence I draw inference that the house mentioned and the subject matter of the case are the same in Exhibits “E1” to “E3”. These receipts were produced by the attorney of the plaintiff after he had already given evidence. Nevertheless I am satisfied that those documents were not fabricated to meet this case but that they are genuine and refer to the house at 2A Cornelia Ida.
It is conceded in the pleadings that the house was once the plaintiff's. My first question to answer is if it was sold to the defendant? And secondly if it were not sold to the defendant whether she is a tenant or a licencee? Sarah Ahmad died before the filing of this action and therefore the court could not have the benefit of her testimony. However, her attorney gave evidence to support the plaintiff's contention that the defendant did not buy the house. But is he truthful on this aspect of the case?
How did the defendant's occupancy of the house originate? The testimony of the plaintiff is that the defendant went to the plaintiff at Ruimveldt where the latter lived and requested her permission to live in her house at Cronelia Ida because of domestic disharmony with her husband and children. The plaintiff who had known the defendant many years before and to whom the defendant had confided her troubles, agreed for the defendant to live in her house at Cornelia Ida. According to the defendant, however, it was the plaintiff who enquired of her if she wanted a house to buy. The defendant had little money but jewels. So she bought the house by paying the plaintiff twenty five dollars in cash and eight hundred and fifty dollars ($850.00) in jewellery. There is no receipt to show any payment because the plaintiff who had promised to give her a receipt did not do so. Her son Abdool Sakoor, who gave evidence to support this contract of buying and selling varied the selling price somewhat by testifying that his mother paid fifty dollars in cash and eight hundred and fifty dollars in jewellery. Since the transaction is supposed to have taken place some fifteen years ago it is understandable that the evidence of the two parties may vary to such a minor degree. The witness, Sakoor, knew of no domestic trouble of his mother although he lived with her until five years after she bought the house. The defendant, has, however, admitted that she had these domestic troubles with her husband's children and that was the reason why she wanted to remove. From the evidence I have concluded that the defendant took up occupancy of the house because of the benevolence of Sarah Ahmad. Sarah Ahmad knew of the troubles of the defendant and in order to render concrete assistance to her permitted her to live in her house rent-free. I do not believe that the defendant bought the house from the plaintiff; nor did she give her any jewels. For if the defendant did buy the house why she did not so inform Nazir Ahmad? I believe Somaria that after she bought the house from Sarah Ahmad, she showed the defendant the receipt and the defendant removed from the house for a week and then returned to the house and since lived in it continuously. The defendant testified that Somwaria went to her and told her that she had bought the house. The defendant then showed her inside of the house and Somwaria exclaimed “Oh God me throw away me money.” To my mind the act of the defendant showing Somwaria the inside of the house when Somwaria stated that she had bought the house in inconsistent with ownership in the defendant. Another portion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial