Latest update November 4th, 2024 1:00 AM
Jul 22, 2018 News
A long standing property dispute between two siblings and another relative was resolved on Friday when the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of one of them, and awarded cost in the sum of $200,000.
The dispute between the two brothers concerns the ownership of the popular Shanta’s Puri Shop situated at the West Half of Sub Lot A 225 Camp and South Cummingsburg, Georgetown.
The business which was established in the 1960s has become part of Guyanese culinary history. Operations were started by Parbatie Persaud, who is now dead. Persaud had migrated to England in 1966, where she lived until her death in 2003.
However, Deodat Persaud had challenged his brother Premdaat Persaud and nephew Mikhail Persaud’s attempt to convey the property to them pursuant to an agreement of sale allegedly executed by their mother Parbatie.
Premdaat and Mikail had also claimed specific performance of an agreement of sale for the property and for an order that the Registrar convey transport of the property to them.
Consequently, Deodat, in his capacity of executor of the estate of Parbatie, mounted a challenge against the claims of his brother and nephew.
He was represented by lawyer Devindra Kissoon of London House Chambers.
Mikhail and Premdaat were represented by Attorney-at-law Stephen Fraser.
After conducting a trial, High Court Judge Rishi Persaud in 2011, found that Mikhail and Premdaat’s claim for equitable and specific performance was bound to fail for on the face of it, their case consisted of several material contradictions and inconsistencies.
On the basis of these contradictions, Justice Persaud concluded that their case was material conflicted, inconsistent, untruthful and wholly unbelievable. He accordingly dismissed the claim for specific performance without considering Deodat’s defence.
Deodat had contended that the agreement of sale was a forgery.
Mikhail and Premdaat then moved to the Court of Appeal asking that the Judge’s decision be overturned.
In their notice of appeal, they contended that the decision of the trial Judge was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence; the trial Judge made findings of fact not disclosed in the evidence; the decision could not be supported having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence of the appellants and the law relating to specific performance.
The duo further argued that the decision was bad in law and against the weight of the evidence and the trial Judge failed to consider, evaluate and put in legal perspective the evidence of the Appellants and their witnesses.
At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, which was presided over by Chancellor Yonette Cummings, and Justices Arif Bulkan and Rishi Persaud, it was announced that the appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal stated that there was no reason to interfere with the trial judge’s finding of fact and that the trial judge did not err in dismissing the claim.
The Appeal Court further found that based on the legal authorities and the evidence; there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Judge. It was noted by the appellate judges that the evidence produced by Mikhail and Premdaat was manifestly inconsistent, conflicting, untruthful and not credible.
The Court disagreed with the appellant’s arguments that the agreement of sale was properly validated by the Evidence Act, and awarded costs to Deodat Persaud in the amount of $200,000.
October 1st turn off your lights to bring about a change!
Nov 04, 2024
– Chase, Waramuri also with victories Kaieteur Sports – The Republic Bank Schools Under-18 Football League kicked off its second round with a thrilling display of skill and grit yesterday...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo found himself at the center of a controversy regarding... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]