Peters v Richards et Al

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: Lewis, J.A.,Lewis, C.J.,Davis, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 22 June 1971
• Neutral Citation: AG 1971 CA 8
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1971
• Date: 22 June 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis, J.A.; Davis, J.A. (Acting)

Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1971

Peters

and

Richards et al.

Appearances:

S. T Christian and A. Forde for the defendant/appellant

J. R. Henry, Q. C., with F.A. Clarke for plaintiffs/respondents

C. E. Hewlett for defendant/respondent

Real property - Possession — Whether the judge erred in granting the respondents undisturbed possession.

Real property - Possession — Adverse Possession — Real Property Limitation Act, Cap. 290.

Real property - Title — Whether the respondents had a good title to the property.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the respondents had not raised the issue of adverse possession in their claim or argued at the trial.

Facts: The issue was whether the respondents could base a claim on adverse possession. Evidence revealed that the respondents had argued that they had obtained possession by purchase. If this were so, and the vendor still retained possession then the vendors would become trustees and the respondents beneficiaries. Under s. 7 of the Act however a beneficiary could not obtain a title agreement against a trustee.

Facts: Evidence revealed that the purported document of sale was not signed by one of the co-owners of the land. The signature of the other vendor was not proved, and the document was undated.

Held: The trial judge erred in ruling on this issue since it was not property before him. Appeal allowed.

Held: The purported document of sale had no legal value. Appeal allowed.

Lewis, J.A.

1 On January 6, 1969, one Alice Pemberton, a beneficiary under the will of Rebecca Cornelius, issued a writ against the defendant/respondent Claude-Earl Francis for the purpose of compelling him to administer the estate of the said Rebecca Cornelius.

2 Alice Pemberton died on February 8, 1969, having by her will appointed the plaintiffs/respondents in this matter her executors. By an order of the High Court dated April 23, 1969, the plaintiffs/respondents were substituted for Alice Pemberton as plaintiffs in the suit which she had commenced, and by the same order the defendant/appellant Elfreida Peters was joined as defendant in the said suit. The reason for joining her was that she claimed to have purchased the properly which is the subject-matter of the action. This property, which is situate in Church Street, will hereinafter be referred to as the “property in dispute.”

3 There was some discussion between Virginia Sealey and Rebecca Cornelius concerning the sale of the property in dispute, and indeed it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that this property was purchased by Rebecca Cornelius from Augustus Sealey and Virginia Sealey (hereinafter referred to as “the Sealeys”) in 1939, and that the said Rebecca Cornelius was in undisputed possession thereof from that year until her death in 1966. The alleged purchase of the property in dispute from the Sealeys was supported by a document which was put in evidence by consent and which purports to be a conveyance from the Sealeys to Rebecca Cornelius. The document in question is undated except that the year 1939 appears thereon, and it contains certain statements on which the trial judge based three of his findings.

4 The first material piece of information in this document refers to the parties, and it is therein stated that the vendors of the property are the Sealeys. Then there are certain recitals in this document which I will quote for what they are worth. These recitals indicate that the Sealeys obtained the property in dispute under the will of their mother, Caroline Sealey, who was said to have purchased it from one Mary Casimir Gonsalves in 1919 and that this purchase is recorded in the Register of Deeds in Antigua in Liver V, Volume 5, folios 417- 420. It is further recited that Caroline Sealey made a will in 1921 which has not been admitted to probate, and that by this will she left the property in dispute to her children; that in the year 1939 only Augastus and Virginia were alive, the other children of Caroline Sealey having died intestate, unmarried and without issue, so that at the time when the alleged sale took place the vendors were the sole surviving devisees under the will of their mother Caroline Sealey. The consideration in this document is said to have been 55, and it was alleged that this sum was paid by the purchaser to the vendor.

5 The trial judge found that this document was quite worthless. In. his judgment he posed the question:

“Was the Church Street Droperty purchased by Rebecca Cornelius from Augustus Sealey and Virginia Sealey in 1939 or at all?”

6 and he answered it as follows:

“In support of the allegation that it was so bought an undated, unacknowledged and unilaterally signed document was tendered in evidence. In my view this document gives no title to Rebecca Cornelius, legal or, to the property in question.”

7 With this finding I agree.

8 This document, as I have said before, is...