Raj Kumari Passi v Roshan Lal Hansrani
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Tindal |
| Judgment Date | 05 August 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 2062 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2022-BHM-000061 |
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Tindal
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: PT-2022-BHM-000061
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
Bull Street,
Birmingham
Mr David Mitchell (instructed by MFG Solicitors LLP) for the Claimants
Mr Paul Burton (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 17 th 18 th 19 th 20 th 21 st 24 th 25 th June and July 2024
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Tindal
HHJ
Introduction
This case is a classic example of how confusing and embittered property ownership can become within a family when it is not clearly recorded in writing, exacerbated by the absence of wills from the parents. This is multiplied as the dispute relates to not one property but eleven. As a result, a brother on one side and his three sisters on the other have between them spent over £800,000 feuding about their properties, with all the animosity and anguish which comes with that. The case was crying out for settlement, but now it falls to me to decide. After I have done so, I will have to decide which side is the ‘winner’ for the purposes of costs. But the truth is that in this litigation, the whole family has lost.
Mr Shiv Darshan Hansrani (whom I shall call ‘Father’) came to the UK from India, permanently from 1964 with his son the Defendant (whom I shall refer to as such or more commonly as ‘Roshan’). They were joined in 1966 by Mr Hansrani's wife Mrs Kaushalya Devi Hansrani (whom I shall call ‘Mother’) and their three daughters, the First, Second and Third Claimants (whom I shall call ‘Raj’, ‘Pawan’ and ‘Ravi’ respectively). The Fourth Claimant (whom I shall call ‘Rashmi’), is one of Raj's daughters. (She only played a minor role and I exclude her from the criticisms I level at the other parties). Mother and Father worked hard through the 1960s-1970s and the four children went on to successful careers. The family built up a portfolio of properties in Leicester (and Pawan's house at 812 Greenford Road, Uxbridge). In order of purchase those featuring in this case were: 65 Worthington Street (bought in 1965 and sold in 1980), 159 Nansen Road (bought in 1974), 163 Nansen Road (bought in 1978), 76 Romway Road (bought in 1979), 812 Greenford Road and 44, Bonsall Road (bought in the 1980s), 146, Nansen Road (bought in 1981), 157 Nansen Road (bought in 1984), 10 Sawley Street (bought in 1986), 11 Egginton Street (bought in 1988), 25 Lyme Road (bought in 1992), 45 Thurlby Road (bought in 1996), 164 Nansen Road (bought in 1999), 8 Quenby Street and 21, Trafford Road (bought in 2001), 15, Thurlby Road and 130, Nansen Road (bought in 2002) and 21 Bannerman Road (bought in 2005). Roshan has the sole legal title to 45 Thurlby Road and shares it on a few others but title to most of the properties is held by the Claimants. For years, he managed the rental of the properties and distributed the rent. Though nothing was in writing. That reared its head, as it so often does, when the parties fell out.
Mother died intestate in 2005 and Roshan, who had lived with her as well as his own family at 159 Nansen Road for many years, was her Administrator but he did not administer her estate or instruct solicitors to do so for several years and Ravi was eventually appointed alongside him. In March 2011, Roshan's marriage was unravelling and he separated from his wife, Mrs Veena Hansrani (whom I shall call ‘Veena’) and saw his GP for depression. Around this time, he removed his name from joint bank accounts with his sisters and in Autumn 2011, he transferred title in 159, Nansen Road (his home) and 11, Egginton Street from himself and Ravi as Personal Representatives to his three sisters, Ravi, Raj, and Pawan (and Roshan was also removed from the title of 21 Bannerman Road). Veena blamed the Claimants for the estrangement and when she reconciled with Roshan in 2019, relationships between him and his sisters deteriorated. He stopped paying them rent and in May 2022, they issued these proceedings.
In their Particulars of Claim, the Claimants effectively sought five remedies:
4.1 Firstly, they sought declarations that between them individually or collectively (and not Roshan) they were not only the legal owners but the beneficial owners of 159 Nansen Road, 163 Nansen Road, 76 Romway Road, 10 Sawley Street and 11 Eggington Street. Raj also sought a declaration that she shared beneficial ownership with Roshan of 45 Thurlby Road in his name. I will call these ‘the Disputed Ownership Properties’.
4.2 Secondly, they sought consequential orders, including possession of 159 Nansen Road (Roshan and Veena's home) and 45, Thurlby Road, along with 25 Lyme Road, in which Raj and Roshan have equal beneficial shares; and recification of the title register to reflect their ownership.
4.3 Thirdly, they claimed from Roshan as managing agent and/or fiduciary unpaid rent from the properties in their own beneficial ownership, including the Disputed Ownership Properties (except 159 Nansen Road) and what I shall call the Disputed Rental Properties: 812, Greenford Road, 8 Quenby Street, 164 Nansen Road, 21 Bannerman Road and 25 Lyme Road.
4.4 Fourthly, Raj claimed from Roshan unpaid loans of £89,000.
4.5 Finally, the Claimants claimed an account of all Mother's cash, gold and jewellery which passed to Roshan as her Personal Representative.
In his Defence and Counterclaim, the Defendant responded as follows:
5.1 Firstly, he denied the Claimants' case and sought declarations himself that he was the beneficial owner of the Disputed Ownership Properties.
5.2 Secondly, he sought transfer of those properties into his own name.
5.3 Thirdly, he denied that he was a fiduciary or agent of the Claimants or indeed that there was any enforceable contract between them and denied that he owed the Claimants any rent on any of the Disputed Properties.
5.4 Fourthly, he denied liability for any loan to Raj and counterclaimed a loan of £40,000 to her in December 2016; and a loan of £40,000 to Ravi in 2016.
5.5 Finally, he denied that the claims in relation to Mother's estate – which he contended he did not administer — were properly constituted or in time; and in any event denied retaining any cash, gold or jewellery.
In their Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, the Claimants denied these claims.
Whilst Raj had also issued a claim in the Land Tribunal about 45, Thurlby Road, that was stayed in August 2022. On 15 th August 2023, DJ Rich made case management directions to this trial and on 13 th September 2023, he granted the Claimants' application for the Defendant to pay them 2/3 of the net income for 10 Sawley Street and 8 Quenby Street, 1/3 of it for 164 Nansen Road, 75% for 21 Bannerman Road and 50% for 25 Lyme Road. The case came before me at Pre-Trial Review on 6 th February 2024, primarily for the Claimants' application for summary judgment, which I dismissed. However, it was also clear to me that the antagonism between the parties was hampering the litigation. Statements on both sides were full of irrelevant vitriol (and inadmissible opinion evidence) about the other and I was clear that I expected both parties to focus on the issues. To that end, I ordered a more detailed list of issues in the form of a Scott Schedule.
I am grateful for the detailed Schedule, which I would simplify into these issues:
7.1 What is the beneficial ownership of the Disputed Ownership Properties?
(i) Was there agreement as to beneficial ownership of each property?
(ii) Who financially contributed to the acquisition of each property?
(iii) Who financially contributed to mortgage or works on each property?
(iv) Was there any later agreement to alter beneficial ownership?
(v) What were the reasons for any transfer of title within the family?
7.2 In respect of any of the Disputed Ownership Properties, should there be a transfer of legal title, possession order for sale or any accounts ordered?
7.3 Should the Defendant account to the Claimants any net rental income from the Disputed Ownership Properties or the Disputed Rental Properties?
7.4 What loans are outstanding as between the parties?
7.5 Should the Defendant account to the Claimants for any family property?
These issues do raise some legal questions, especially as to whether there are constructive or resulting trusts of the Disputed Ownership Properties and what orders should be made under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (‘TLATA’). But there is no real dispute on the legal principles and I deal with them briefly later. However, it is worth saying now that both Counsel agree there is a presumption that the equitable estate follows the legal estate, although they disagree as to its effect in this case. The Defendant, through Mr Burton, argues the crucial presumption is that of resulting trust. The gist of his case is that he bought the relevant properties, but put them in others' names, who hold them on resulting trust for him. The Claimants, through Mr Mitchell, argue the presumption of resulting trust is rebutted by the wording of the transfers if they declare the beneficial interests (in effect an express trust), or by oral agreement and detrimental reliance (in effect a constructive trust). So, the gist of the Claimants' case is that equitable title does indeed reflect legal title (save on 45 Thurlby Road) relying on the transfers, asserted agreements and asserted financial contributions. Ultimately of course, all these issues turn on the facts.
As I made clear to the parties both at PTR...
To continue reading
Request your trial