Sohtra v Peddi - [2022] VSC 427

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2022 00574

BETWEEN:

SHAH NAWAZ SOHTRA	Plaintiff
v
MAMATHA PEDDI	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	Given ex tempore on 26 July 2022, revised on 29 July 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sohtra v Peddi
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 427

---

LAND – Recovery of possession – Application for summary possession rejected – Whether application may be granted in circumstances where there is a dispute about complex facts or legal issues - FramlinghamAboriginal Trust v McGuiness and Chatfield [2014] VSC 241.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R A Fink	Mahl Lawyers
The Defendant appeared in person	Mr T Peddi (appeared as lay advocate)	Self-Represented Litigant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

Applicable principles........................................................................................................................ 4

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 5

Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 5

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 7

HER HONOUR:

The plaintiff’s application is made pursuant to Order 53 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘Rules’). As discussed below, Order 53 is a summary procedure for possession of land. The subject property is located at 54A O’Reilly Road, Tarneit. It is described by Certificate of Title Volume 11285 Folio 723.[1]
[1]The certificate of title is contained in Exhibit SNS-4 to the Sohtra affidavit.

Evidence

The plaintiff relies on the following.

(a) Affidavit of Shah Nawaz Sohtra affirmed on 17 February 2022 (‘Sohtra affidavit’);

(b) Affidavit of Chirag Grewal affirmed on 22 February 2022 (‘Grewal affidavit’);

(c) Affidavits of Service of Numan Amjad sworn on 16 March 2022 and 26 May 2022.

The defendant relies on the following.

(a) Affidavit of Mamatha Peddi affirmed on 29 June 2022 (‘Peddi affidavit’).

Background

The following outlines the background and the factual dispute between the parties, based on their affidavit evidence.

In February 2013, the plaintiff purchased 54 O’Reilly Rd, Tarneit and subdivided the lot into two properties, being 54A O’Reilly Rd (‘subject property’), and 54B O’Reilly Rd (‘adjacent property’).[2] In February 2016, the plaintiff engaged a real estate agent, Mr Mukesh Kumar of Reliance Real Estate, to sell one of the properties. He intended to retain the other property as a passive investment.[3]
[2]Sohtra affidavit, [1]-[5].
[3]Ibid, [6]-[8].

In May 2016, Mr Kumar advised the plaintiff that he had conducted an inspection of the subject property with the defendant and her husband.[4] The defendant says she inspected the subject property (which she refers to by the number for the adjacent property) and decided to buy it. She deposes that:

While inspecting the property the vendor and real estate agent misrepresented the property number as 54B O’Reilly Road Tarneit 3029 [which is the number of the adjacent property].
I trusted and entered the contract.
I have been given possession of the [subject] property which I inspected and [is] now numbered as 54A O’Reilly Road [which is the number of the subject property].
I do not have the money to afford a legal representation…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sohtra v Peddi and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] VSC 427
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sohtra v Peddi involved a dispute over the recovery of possession of certain land. The plaintiff, Sohtra, sought summary possession of the land against the defendant, Peddi. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was whether an application for summary possession could be granted in circumstances where there was a dispute about complex facts or legal issues. The court had to consider the principles set out in the case of Framlingham Aboriginal Trust v McGuiness and Chatfield, where the Supreme Court of Victoria held that an application for summary possession may not be granted if there are complex factual or legal disputes that need to be resolved.

The court considered the nature of the dispute and whether it involved complex facts or legal issues that required a more comprehensive hearing. In this case, the court found that there were indeed complex factual issues that needed to be addressed, such as the validity of the defendant's claim to possession and the rights of any third parties. The court concluded that the dispute did not meet the criteria for summary possession as outlined in Framlingham Aboriginal Trust v McGuiness and Chatfield. Consequently, the application for summary possession was rejected.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to ensure that justice was served by allowing all relevant parties to present their case fully, particularly when complex issues were involved. The court determined that a more comprehensive hearing was necessary to address the intricate facts and legal questions raised by the defendant. The outcome of the case highlights the importance of carefully considering the nature of the dispute when deciding whether to grant an application for summary possession.

The court's decision in Sohtra v Peddi was that the application for summary possession was to be rejected. The matter would proceed to a more detailed hearing to resolve the complex factual and legal issues involved. The court did not make any specific orders in this regard, but the rejection of the summary possession application necessitated further proceedings to determine the rightful possession of the land in question.

Orders