Narain v Chinappa - [2021] NZHC 1886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-000578

[2021] NZHC 1886

BETWEEN
ANGELINE DEEP NARAIN

First Plaintiff

KANIAMMA WINTER
Second Plaintiff

AND

AJNESH NARAIN CHINAPPA and VILASHNI VANDANA CHINAPPA

Defendants

Hearing: 12 to 14 April 2021 and 3 June 2021

Appearances:

ASR Kashyap and SYY Yong for the Plaintiff O Rose and NTC Batts for the Defendants

Judgment:

26 July 2021

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 26 July 2021 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Aaron Kashyap, Barrister & Solicitor, Auckland Haigh Lyon, Lawyers, Auckland

NARAIN v CHINAPPA [2021] NZHC 1886 [26 July 2021]

[1] This is a family dispute over ownership of a residential property at 7 Ferndown Avenue, Papatoetoe. The answer turns largely on who won a lotto prize of $250,000 in January 2009.

[2] The parties are all related. The second plaintiff, Kaniamma Winter, is the mother of the first-named plaintiff and the first-named defendant, Angeline and Ajnesh. Vilashni Chinappa is Ajnesh’s wife.

[3] Angeline issued the proceeding. She says she won a lotto prize of $250,000 in January 2009 and applied $72,046.70 towards the purchase of the Ferndown Avenue property. The property was registered in the names of the defendants. She says it was agreed she would have a half share in the property. In the alternative she says she has a 50 per cent interest in the property by way of constructive or resulting trust.

[4] The defendants acknowledge that $72,046.70 of the lotto winnings was applied to purchase the property. But they say it was Mrs Winter who owned the lotto ticket, that she gifted the money to them, and at most they have a moral obligation to repay some of it.

[5] Angeline joined Mrs Winter as a plaintiff during or immediately after the hearing and they filed an amended statement of claim, claiming in the alternative that the ownership interest in the property belonged to Mrs Winter and/or that she had a life interest. This was done at my suggestion because I considered these arguments arose out of the evidence. Mrs Winter had insisted throughout the proceeding that Angeline was the owner of the lotto ticket so the claim to an ownership interest was uncomfortable for her. In any event, as a result of my findings, that claim by Mrs Winter becomes redundant.

[6] Angeline, Mrs Winter, Ajnesh and Vilashni all filed affidavits and gave evidence. Avinash, the older brother of Angeline and Ajnesh, also gave evidence for Angeline. Mr Singh, who was previously a friend of Mrs Winter but who has lived with the Chinappas for years, gave evidence for the Chinappas.

Background

[7] As I have said, Angeline, Ajnesh and Avinash are the adult children of Mrs Winter. Avinash is the oldest and Ajnesh the youngest.

[8] The winning lotto ticket was purchased in January 2009 by either Angeline or by Mrs…

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.

Continue reading Narain v Chinappa

Details

AGLC: Narain v Chinappa [2021] NZHC 1886
Case: [2021] NZHC 1886
Decision Date: 26 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case was a family dispute over the ownership of a residential property at 7 Ferndown Avenue, Papatoetoe. The dispute turned largely on who won a lotto prize of $250,000 in January 2009. The plaintiffs, Angeline Deep Narain and Kaniamma Winter, claimed that Angeline had won the lotto prize and applied $72,046.70 of it towards the purchase of the Ferndown Avenue property. They claimed that it was agreed that Angeline would have a half share in the property. The defendants, Ajnesh Narain Chinappa and Vilashni Vandana Chinappa, acknowledged that $72,046.70 of the lotto winnings was applied to purchase the property but said that it was Kaniamma who owned the lotto ticket, that she gifted the money to them, and at most they have a moral obligation to repay some of it. The court had to decide six issues, including who owned the lotto ticket, whether there was an agreement between Angeline and the Chinappas as to 50/50 ownership, and whether Angeline/Mrs Winter had an equitable interest in the property by way of a resulting or constructive trust. The court found that Angeline owned the lotto ticket and that there was a reasonable expectation of a 50 per cent share in the Ferndown Avenue property. The court also found that the defence of laches did not apply. The defendants held the Ferndown Avenue property as to a 50 per cent share for the first plaintiff on the basis set out above. The first plaintiff was entitled to costs.

Orders