Venkataramanujam v Ramasubramanian

[2018] NZHC 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-2209

[2018] NZHC 1478

BETWEEN

BAGATHSINGH VENKATARAMANUJAM AND HEMA PERUMALSAMY

Applicants

AND

PREMA RAMASUBRAMANIAN

First Respondent

RAM NARAYANARAJA

Second Respondent

Hearing:

20 June 2018

Counsel:

K Muller for Applicants

P F Chambers for Respondents

Judgment:

20 June 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Solicitors:           Paul Gallagher Legal, Auckland

Presland and Co, Auckland

VENKATARAMANUJAM AND v RAMASUBRAMANIAN [2018] NZHC 1478 [20 June 2018]

[1]                   This is an application, pursuant to ss 339 and 343 of the Property Law Act, directing the sale of two properties and the division of the proceeds amongst the parties.

[2]                   The short background is that the applicants, together with the first respondent, purchased two  properties,  one  at  64B  Pleasant  Road,  Glen  Eden,  and  one  at  36 Boundary Road, Blockhouse Bay. The properties are held by them in equal half shares, the parties having paid for the properties via a combination of deposit and financing. There is also evidence that the second respondent, Mr Narayanaraja, assisted the applicants with their deposit, in the sum of $57,000 with $23,000 still to be paid or repaid.

[3]                   It transpires that, by the time this matter came to be heard, all but one key aspect had effectively been agreed. The output of those agreements takes shape in the form of formal orders, which Ms Muller has helpfully drafted during an adjournment of the hearing. Those orders have been approved by the respondents. The effect of those orders are, in short, that the properties are to be sold via specified processes, with the proceeds of sale to be divided between the applicants and the first respondent, subject to one reservation which I will now explain.

[4]                   The applicants also sought orders for, in short, accounting for rents paid to the first and second respondent during the occupancy of 64B Pleasant Road. That application is met by evidence from the second respondent, that agreement had in fact been reached that any rentals obtained for the properties could be applied to the reduction of the mortgages. It became immediately apparent to me that the existence of any such agreement was in issue and could not be resolved in the context of an originating application. After some discussion with the parties, it was agreed that a sensible way forward would be to ring fence an amount representing the claimed rentals. It also transpires that the first respondent has commenced a claim in the District Court for the sum, she says, was lent to the applicants for the purposes of the deposit which remains unpaid. Mr Chambers submitted that any claim for the rentals could be dealt with by way of counterclaim in that proceeding. Ms Muller, for the applicants, accepted that that was a sensible way to proceed. The draft order therefore records that the sum of $25,000 is to be paid into the District Court so that the claims

in respect of the rental and the deposit may be paid upon the resolution of any claim in that Court.

[5]                   Accordingly, there being general agreement as to the way the present proceeding should be resolved, I make the orders set out in Appendix A.

[6]                   Submissions on costs are to be filed by the respondent within five working days, with any reply within three working days thereafter. I will then make a decision on the papers.