IN a legal battle over the ownership of a huge property at Cummings and Regent Streets here in the city, Justice Lennox Perry in 1992 dismissed the claim after finding that the plaintiff, Llewellyn Singh, was supporting a will that the Court found never existed.

The Judge ordered that the action dealing with the will, dated November 9, 1984 and said to be made by Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh (deceased) in favour of the plaintiff be dismissed.

Said the judge: “I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy this court that there ever existed a Will dated the 9th November, 1984.

“Accordingly, the plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed, and judgment is hereby given in favour of the defendant, Lloyd Samuel Bridgewater on his counter-claim.

“It is ordered that the will, dated the 9th of June, 1984, introduced by the defendant as being made by Lawrence Singh (deceased), and in favour of the defendant, be admitted Probate in solemn form as the last Will and testament of the deceased Lawrence Singh.”

The plaintiff’s story was that Lawrence Singh made the will in his favour on November 9, 1984 and died the following month, December 10, 1984.

In his judgment, Justice Perry said that the plaintiff sought the following relief from the Court:

(i) That this Honourable Court decree and pronounce Probate in Solemn Form of and in favour of the Last Will and Testament of Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh, deceased, dated 9th November, 1984 , the said testator having died on 10 December, 1984, having a fixed place of abode residence and domicile in Guyana.

Llewellyn S

(ii) An injunction against the defendant restraining him and/or his servants and agents and otherwise from, in any manner, interfering with or remaining on the assets of the estate of Lawrence Emanuel Becuni Singh, deceased.

(iii) An appointment of the Plaintiff as receiver of the property and assets of the said deceased estate.

(iv) An order for the Defendant as Executor de son tort having inter-meddled in the said estate, to account for all the assets and properties of the said deceased estate.

(v) Damages in excess of $1,500.00 against the defendant.

(vi) An injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents and otherwise from disposing of, dealing with, or in any manner denuding the estate of its assets.

(vii) An order for the Defendant to replace and return to the estate all assets, things and properties disposed of by him.

(viii) An order that the Defendant to vacate and remove from the property of the deceased estate.

Continuing, the judge said that in his statement of claim, the plaintiff said that the deceased left no other will than the one of November 9, 1984.

The defendant, on the other hand, sought to propound a will purported to have been executed by the said deceased and dated June 9, 1984.

According to the judge, with respect to the will dated June 9, 1984, the plaintiff contended that:-

(a) The said will was never signed and/or executed by the deceased.

(b) That it does not and never approved the will of the deceased and that it goes counter and against all the expressed intention of the deceased, the deceased having died on the 10th day of December, 1984 at his home.

He quoted the plaintiff as saying that the defendant had seized the possessions of the deceased and had them in his possession. But the defendant, on the other hand, denied all the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, claiming that on December 21, 1979, he purchased the disputed property at Lot 101 Regent and Cummings Streets from the deceased, and that the relevant documents relating to the said sale and purchase by him were duly filed at the Deeds Registry and the fees paid on the August 6, 1980.

Judge Perry said that despite the alleged sale of the property to the defendant, the deceased went on to execute the alleged will, dated June 9, 1984, naming the defendant as the sole beneficiary under the said will. The deceased also made other dispositions of his personal property to the defendant.

The judge noted that the will in the plaintiff’s possession, which was dated November 9,1984, was never produced in court, and that neither did the certificate tendered by the Deeds Registry show that any will was registered by the deceased or anyone on his behalf during that period.

According to the judge, when shown the will dated June 9, 1984 — this being the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased in favour of the defendant, Bridgewater — the plaintiff said that the signature purporting to be that of the deceased was not in fact his.

After hearing the witnesses for the plaintiff ,the judge said, he got the distinct impression that they were witnesses of convenience who had come to support the plaintiff’s case based on what he had told them. Said he: “I am satisfied that they never witnessed any will executed by the deceased as they started in their evidence. I did not believe them.”

Turning his attention to the case for the defendant, the judge said that the evidence of his Attorney-at-Law, Mr Jainarayan Singh, was very forceful and compelling. An attorney of some 40 years experience, Singh said he knew the deceased, Lawrence EB Singh, quite well, and that he’d even consulted with him about the making of a will. During the course of that consultation, the judge said the lawyer said that he made notes of what the testator wanted done and it was from those notes that he prepared the will.

Not yet done with the subject, the judge said that at the conclusion of the preparation of the said will, the lawyer gave it to the testator to read and he himself read it. He further examined the copy to see that the intention of the testator were clear and carried out. And upon asking the testator if he was pleased with the way the will was drafted, he replied in the affirmative.

It was at that point that the testator signed the will not only in the lawyer’s presence but also in the presence of the lawyer’s secretary who was the other subscribing witness. The lawyer was also a signatory to the will, the judge declared, adding that he was satisfied “that the will dated June 9, 1984 was properly and duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act, [and that] Mr. Singh, the lawyer, acted in a professional manner and there was no reason to disbelieve his evidence.”

Noting that the defendant, in his testimony, had said that he was living with the deceased at the disputed property, and that he only knew the plaintiff by seeing him in court, Justice Perry said in closing that he was satisfied that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court that there ever existed a will dated November 9, 1984.

“Accordingly,” he said, “the plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed, and judgment is hereby given in favour of the defendant, Lloyd Samuel Bridgewater, on his counter-claim, and it is ordered that the will dated June 9, 1984 be admitted probate in solemn form as the last will and testament of the deceased, Lawrence Singh. Costs to be taxed in favour of the defendant, both on the claim and counter-claim.”