Narain v Chinappa - [2013] NZHC 2286

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-2269 [2013] NZHC 2286

UNDER Section 145A of the Land Transfer Act
1945

BETWEEN ANGELINE DEEP NARAIN Applicant/Plaintiff

ANDAJNESH NARAIN CHINAPPA and VALASHNI VANDANA CHINAPPA Respondent/Defendant

Hearing: 28 August 2013

Appearances: A Kashyap for Applicant
S Sharma for Respondents

Judgment: 4 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE

This judgment was delivered by me on
04.09.13 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:
A Kashyap, Barrister & Solicitor
Sanjay Sharma Barrister & Solicitor

NARAIN v CHINAPPA & ANOR [2013] NZHC 2286 [4 September 2013]

Background

[1] The applicant is the sister of the first named respondent. The second named respondent, the wife of the first named respondent, is her sister-in-law. A further person who must be mentioned is Ms Kaniamma Winter (Ms Winter) who is the mother of both the applicant and the first named respondent. The parties had been living together in rental accommodation up until 2008. It seems to be the case that there was a common wish that at some point they would be able to purchase a house which would be large enough to accommodate the four of them together with any children that might come along in the case of the respondents. At the time, the applicant was unmarried and it was expected that she would continue living with the family until she married.

[2] At the time of the events with which this application is concerned the applicants and the respondents were all in full time work. Their mother was on a WINZ benefit.

[3] In January 2009 one of the family purchased a Lotto ticket and won a share of the 1st division prize in the sum of $250,000. The applicant says that it was her ticket. I interpolate that it is her evidence that she applied part of the money to the purchase of property which is the subject of a caveat as I describe later in this judgment. There is a dispute about whether she won the Lotto or whether her mother did, so that it was the mother who made the contributions to the acquisition of the house-property, and not her.

[4] Be that as it may, there is no doubt that a payout was received from the Lotteries Commission. Considerable evidence was given concerning what happened about the money but it is clear that the $250,000 was initially paid by the Lotteries Commission directly into the account of the respondents. The explanation that the applicant gives concerning this aspect of the matter is, essentially, that it was her mother who took the Lotto ticket in to be checked and she was told that it had won a share of the first division prize of $250,000. When the mother visited the Lotto outlet she was accompanied by the second named respondent, her daughter-in-law. Further, although the mother had a bank account (either in her own right or jointly

with…

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 [2013] NZHC 2286
Case: [2013] NZHC 2286
Decision Date: 4 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Narain v Chinappa involved a dispute over a property purchased with the proceeds of a lottery win. Angeline Deep Narain, the applicant, sought to sustain a caveat against the property registered in the names of her brother Ajnesh Narain Chinappa and his wife Valashni Vandana Chinappa, the respondents. Angeline claimed a beneficial interest in the property on the basis of an oral agreement and her alleged contributions towards the purchase price. The respondents argued that the lottery win belonged to their mother, who gifted them the money for the property purchase. The central issue was whether Angeline had made contributions to the property purchase and, if so, whether these contributions were sufficient to establish a reasonably arguable case for a constructive trust. The High Court found that Angeline had not provided clear and convincing evidence to establish her contributions or the existence of an agreement recognising her interest in the property. However, the court held that the applicant had a reasonably arguable case and granted the application to sustain the caveat, deferring the resolution of factual disputes to a trial. The court ordered the parties to confer on costs and, if unable to agree, to file memoranda within ten working days.

Orders