IN 1984, Harrinauth Ramdass purchased land from his sister for $30, 000, but because he withdrew allegations of fraud in later submissions his appeal was dismissed.The facts disclosed that in 1984, Ramdass purchased land from his sister, the first respondent for $30, 000, and he worked the land for the next three years.
In April 1987, Ali Mohamed, showed up with a policeman and claimed that he had bought the land from Ramdass’ sister and so Ramdass could not continue his cultivation.
Mohamed then ploughed the land, which already had a growing crop. Ramdass sought an order of specific performance of his 1984 purchase agreement; his sister claimed that the agreement was fraudulent and/or was obtained by undue influence, and/or misrepresentation on the part of the Ramdass.
The trial judge agreed that Ramdass’ sister, the first named responded, entered into an agreement of sale and purchase with Ramdass but he refused to make the orders in favour of Ramdass.
Ramdass argued that Mohamed, the second respondent, was a purchaser with notice of his possession and occupation of the land and that the burden lay on him to prove the contrary.
But the Court of Appeal constituted by Justices of Appeal Claudette Singh, Nandram Kissoon and Ian Chang held that the English Law of a purchaser’s equitable interests in land does not apply in Guyana.
The agreement of sale between Ramdass and his sister could have been enforced by a claim for specific performance had the transport not been passed to the second respondent, as transport conveys full and absolute title to land and can only be set aside on an allegation of fraud pleaded and proven.
J. Anamayah appealed for the Appellant and M. Bacchus for the respondent.
Delivering the judgment of the Court Justice of Appeal Mr. Nandram Kissoon said that on 18th
April, 1984 the Appellant purchased from his sister, the 1st named Respondent, 36 acres of land situated at Plantation Kendalls, Corentyne , Berbice for the sum of $30, 000, which sum was fully paid.
The Appellant was placed in possession of the said land and cultivated paddy during the years 1984, 1985 and 1986. On the 9th of April, 1986 as he was ploughing the other portion of the land, the second named respondent in company with a policeman, informed him that he had bought the land, and he, Ramdass, was prevented from continuing cultivation.
The second named respondent then not only ploughed the land which was not yet prepared for cultivation, but also ploughed that portion of land which had a growing crop.
The second named respondent, by agreement of sale and purchase between himself Ramdass’ sister, bought 73 acres of land which included the 36 acres purchased by the Appellant and obtained Transport No. 378/87 dated May 5, 1987.
Ramdass, being aggrieved, filed a claim for
(i) Specific performance of his agreement of sale and purchase dated 18th April, 1984;
(ii) An order compelling the 1st named Respondent to pass transport to him;
(iii) A declaration that transport No.378 of 1987 was wrongfully passed;
(iv) An order of the court for the revocation of Transport No. 378 of 1987.
Ramdass’ sister denied that she had any agreement of sale with him and that the purported agreement of sale dated 18th of April, 1984, as alleged by the plaintiff , is a fraudulent transaction and or was obtained by undue influence, and or misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff.
The 2nd named respondent in his defence stated that he bought the land for $125, 000 after negotiating Ramdass’ sister.
The learned trial judge believed and accepted that the Ramdass entered into an agreement of sale and purchase with the Appellant.
The judge stated in his decision, “I am satisfied that the transaction was genuinely entered into.” However, he refused to make the orders in favour of the Appellant.”
Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Anamayah’s main argument in this case was that the second named Respondent was a purchaser with notice of the Appellant’s occupation and possession of the land .
He submitted that the plea of a purchase of a legal estate for value without notice is an absolute , unqualified unanswerable defence against the claims of any prior equitable owner. “It is a single plea and it is not sufficiently made out by proving purchase for value and leaving it to the Plaintiff to prove notice if he can.”
Mr. Anamyah further submitted that the second named Respondent must prove he had no notice of Appellant’s purchase and occupation. He complained that the learned trial judge made no finding whether Ali Mohamed ,the 2nd named Respondent , was a bona fide purchaser for value of the legal estate without notice..
Justice Kissoon, concluding remarks in the judgment of the Court were: “ The agreement of sale between the Appellant and first named Respondent could have been enforced by a claim for specific performance had transport not been passed to the second respondent as transport conveys full and absolute title to land and can only be set aside on an allegation of fraud pleaded and proven.
“The Appellant made certain allegations of fraud in his statement of claim, but they were withdrawn at the trial.
“I find no reason to set aside the Judge’s order.
“Appeal is dismissed. Costs to each Respondent $30, 000.”