Court of Appeal rules of brothers for Sh

A Court of Appeal decision delivered last month has upheld a High Court ruling that the present occupant of the building housing the popular Shanta’s Restaurant has no legal authority to do so.

Following the death of businesswoman, Parbati Persaud aka Parbatti Persaud, her two sons became locked in a legal battle to gain control of the property. Premdaat Persaud had taken over the business, claiming that the property was sold to him prior to his mother’s death. However his brother Deodat Persaud who was named the executor of the woman’s estate had argued that there was no evidence to support such a claim and had asked him his to vacate the property. The business has been a part of Guyana’s culinary history, since the 1960’s.

The Court of Appeal after hearing all arguments in the matter dismissed the appeal filed by Premdaat and his son Mikail and affirmed the March 20, 2011 decision of High Court judge Rishi Persaud. The court also awarded costs in the sum of $200, 000 to Deodat.

The case was heard by appellate judges Chancellor (ag) Yonette Cummings-Edwards, Arif Bulkan and Rafiq Khan SC.

The appellants who are listed as the plaintiffs in the High Court proceedings had made a claim against Deodat for a specific performance of an agreement of sale and purchase made and entered into on 8th February, 2001. That agreement the claim stated was between the plaintiffs and Parbattie Persaud, the deceased vendor and owner of the property.

A copy of the alleged agreement of sale and purchase was included in the statement of claim. It stated that the plaintiffs paid $8M for the property, they would immediately gain possession on signing the agreement and that the transport would be passed within four months of the s

The plaintiffs cla conveyance was du 2003 the busines England on July 2 transport was conve

The woman left duly probated on J England by one of tw under the Last Will

Deodat, it was sta executors of the Wil resealing of the gra mother’s estate whi November 23rd, 20 this development his Eleazar caused a not first named plaintif the grant of probate

In the letter, the prior to the business thereafter Premdaat been the sole occup living thereon and ness to the exclusio everyone else.

It stated that ba graphs in the dec trustees, now only D to call in and conver sell the residue of residue the letter sai erty located at 22 Market Streets, its and business access of that sale, the lett divided equally am five children, incl named plaintiff, woman’s stepson To

Aside from being “call in” the asse Premdaat was given to vacate the prop legal proceedings w and an injunction so continuation of the b

Deodat in his defe 2010 contended tha