Sati Bissessar (in substitution for Ramsaran Bissessar, deceased) (Legal personal representative of the Estate of Bissessar) v Ganase Lall (Administrator ad litem for the estate of Kissoon Lall)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Scott of Foscote |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKPC 48 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 43 of 2003 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 07 October 2004 |
[2004] UKPC 48
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
Lord Clyde
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
[Delivered by Lord Scott of Foscote]
The issue in this case is whether Kissoon Lall, now deceased, acquired a good possessory title to six acres of land at Enterprise Village, Chaguanas in Trinidad. Prior to 8 March 1926 one Reedailal was the registered owner of the land. But Reedailal died intestate on 8 March 1926. It is said that Reedailal was the maternal uncle of Kissoon Lall but this has never been proved and it must be accepted, for present purposes at least, that Reedailal died without next-of-kin. The next registered owner of the land was one Bissessar in whose favour a Warrant of Transfer of the land was made on 6 September 1956. The Warrant of Transfer, after reciting the death of Reedailal intestate and without any lawful next-of-kin, purported to transfer the land to Bissessar "for all the estate of the said Reedailal". The Transfer had been duly authorised by the Governor and was made pursuant to section 28 of the Administration of Estates Ordinance (Ch. 8 No. 1).
The action which has led to this appeal to their Lordships was commenced by Kissoon Lall in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago by writ issued on 4 September 1979. The writ sought a declaration that Kissoon Lall was entitled to be registered as proprietor of the six acres. The Statement of Claim alleged that he had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land since the death of Reedailal. Bissessar had died in August 1957 so the defendants to Kissoon Lall's action were his (Bissessar's) personal representatives, namely, his son Ramsaran and his daughter Deoragee. The Registrar-General, too, was joined as a defendant but took no active part in the proceedings and the action was discontinued against him in April 1998.
It is common ground that Bissessar, although he became the registered owner of the land in 1956, never took possession or went into occupation of any part of the land. It is common ground also that his personal representatives never did so. Indeed it appears that the commencement of the action by Kissoon Lall in 1979 was prompted by the belief that the Bissessar personal representatives were about to assert rights of ownership to the land. On the other hand there is unchallenged evidence that Kissoon Lall, his wife and family had been living in a house on the land and making some agricultural use of some part of the land from, at latest, 1934. The main issue at trial was whether the use of the land that Kissoon Lall and his family had made over the years since 1934 had extended sufficiently to the whole of the six acres to sustain a claim that Kissoon Lall had been in possession of and could claim to have acquired a title to the whole of the land.
For reasons which have not been explained the action did not come to trial until 28 April 1998. By this time some of those who would have been the main witnesses had died. In particular, Kissoon Lall died in October 1980. His widow continued living in the family house on the land until her death in 1992. Nothing seems to have been done to obtain a record admissible in evidence of the testimony that he or she could have given. After Kissoon Lall's death conduct of the action was taken over by one of his sons, Ganase Lall, as administrator ad litem.
As to the issue whether the acts of occupation and possession of the land by Kissoon Lall over the period following the death of Reedailal in 1926 had been of a character and duration sufficient to establish a possessory title to the whole of the six acres, Archie J held that they were not; but the Court of Appeal held, unanimously, that they were. The Court of Appeal did not reject any of Archie J's findings of primary fact. Nor did they identify any misapplication by Archie J of the applicable principles of law. They disagreed, however, with some of the inferences drawn by Archie J from the primary facts and drew from the primary facts inferences that Archie J had not been prepared to draw. Ramsaran Bissessar (Deoragee having died since the Court of Appeal hearing) has appealed to the Privy Council. The issue on the appeal is whether it was open to the Court of Appeal to substitute its own judgment as to the conclusions to be drawn from the primary facts for the judgment of Archie J as to those conclusions.
The period of possession necessary under the law of Trinidad and Tobago for the acquisition of a possessory title is sixteen years (see sections 3 and 4 of the Real Property Limitation Ordinance Ch. 5 No. 7). Both Archie J and the Court of Appeal treated the sixteen year...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Gormandy v Trinidad and Tobago Housing Development Corporation
...29 • The Privy Council has viewed certain factual assessments as a matter better placed for the local judiciary. See Bissessar v Lall [2004] UKPC 48: “11. The inferences drawn by Permanand JA from the evidence of cultivation, namely that Kissoon Lall had been in possession of the whole of ......
-
Dolly v Sookoo
...but without paying rent or acknowledging their title should eventually be extinguished. 17 Second, in Sati Bissessar v. Ganase Lail [2004] UKPC 48, the Privy Council in upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeal on “the issue whether the acts of occupation and possession of the land…. ha......
-
Smith v Benjamin; Smith v Benjamin and Baptiste
...of physical possession. In assessing the significance of the acts of possession, it was said by the Privy Council in Bissessar v. Lall [2004] UKPC 48 (at para. 7) that “the nature of the land in question and the character of the actors are highly relevant.” 62 With respect to David Benjamin......
-
Re Rattan, Balgobin
...requirement for the finding of adverse possession was also accepted by the Privy Council in the case of Sati Bissessar v. Ganase Lail [2004] U.K.P.C. 48. 14 Sharma, J.A. entertained no doubt in the case of Alphat Mohammed v. A G, Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1994 that the word “possession” used b......