Gaspard et Al v Peterville

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Bishop, J.
• Judgment Date: 06 November 1968
• Neutral Citation: LC 1968 HC 28
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 109 of 1966
• Date: 06 November 1968

West Indies Associated States Supreme Court. (High Court)

Bishop, J.

No. 109 of 1966

Gaspard et al

and

Peterville

Appearances:

St. George Murray for Plaintiffs.

Real property - Deed of sale — Whether null and void

The plaintiffs sought an order of the court declaring null and void a deed of sale executed before a Notary Royal and subsequently registered. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of sale of the land in question certain persons were the owners of an individual 3/10 share in the parcel of land; that the remaining 7/10 was the property of the plaintiffs; that the owners of the 3/10 share dismembered more than their share and sold it to the defendant

Held: The portion of land described in the deed was more than the amount to which the parties thereto were entitled to deal. Order made that the deed of sale be declared null and void.

Bishop, J.

1 Simon Gaspard and Louis Gaspard agriculturists of Gros-Islet and Riviere Mitant, the plaintiffs in this action, seek an order of the Court declaring null and void a deed of sale executed before J.G.M. Compton. Notary Royal, on 12 ^th November 1965 and registered on 18 ^th November 1965, in Vol. 105 No. 80869 at noon.

2 In the declaration the plaintiffs allege that at the time of the sale Gregor Hyacinthe, Arinette St. Omer, Theresa Joseph, Philip Joseph and Antoinette Joseph were the owners of an undivided three-tenths share in a parcel of land in the Village of Gros-Islet and measuring 36' 4” frontage along Bridge Street and 102' in depth together with a wooden house thereon. This parcel of land was bounded on the West by Bridge Street, on the North by Madame Bruno, South by Louis Clovis, and East by Ismond Edmund. The remaining seven-tenths share was and still is the property of the plaintiffs.

3 The declaration further alleges that these owners of the undivided three-tenths share dismembered more than their three-tenths share of the land and sold it to John Deterville.

4 The deed of Sale already mentioned purported to sell and convey to John Deterville the portion measuring 36' 4” by 60' in depth “bounded on the West by the remainder of the said lot, East by the lot of Heirs Ismond Edmund, North by the lot now or formerly of Mde. Bruno and South by the lot of Heirs Louis Clovis. Together with a right of way four feet wide leading across the remainder of the said lot from Bridge Street to the lot hereby sold and conveyed”.

5 It is further alleged by the plaintiffs in the declaration that John Deterville is in possession of the property and that the Notary Royal before whom the deed of sale was executed, unsuccessfully requested the purchaser John Deterville to execute a Deed of Correction in respect of the said deed of sale; and also, that the deed of sale erroneously stated that the plaintiffs came and appeared at the making thereof and consented to the sale “their consent being evidenced by their signatures affixed thereto.”

6 The plaintiffs not only seek to have the deed declared null and void but they also ask for such other relief as to the court may appear just.

7 The writ of summons and declaration were filed on the 17 ^th November 1966 and served on John Deterville, Gregor Hyacinthe, Arinette St. Omer, and Antoinette Joseph on the 28 ^th November 1966 and on Theresa Joseph and Philip Joseph on the 1 ^st December 1966.

8 From the record, the matter remained like that until 7 ^th October 1967 when the Acting Deputy Registrar filed a certificate...