Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A businesswoman has lost her appeal over a decision by her deceased husband to leave his home, his share in their joint business, and his savings to his children from his first marriage and his grandson.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Appellate Judges Peter Rajkumar, Maria Wilson and Ricky Rahim rejected an appeal brought by Sumatie Maharaj against her stepson Darshan, who was the executor of his father’s estate.
According to the evidence in the case, in 1991 Dhanraj Maharaj separated from his wife with whom he had four children, including Darshan.
Dhanraj, a taxi driver, kept possession of the matrimonial home and eventually paid his ex-wife for her share in it.
He began a relationship with Maharaj, who lived with him for almost a decade before they got married in late 2000.
Dhanraj and Maharaj started a car rental company and ran it together as partners before he died at age 73 in November 2011.
Maharaj filed a lawsuit after a will executed by Dhanraj a month before his death was probated.
In the will, Dhanraj left his Chaguanas home, he shared with both wives, his children and grandson during his life, to Darshan and two of his siblings.
He permitted Maharaj to continue to live at the property for one year after his death.
He left 25 per cent in the company to Darshan and 25 per cent to his grandson, who lived with him and Maharaj for most of his life. His grandson also received the contents of his bank account.
In November 2017, former High Court Judge and current Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh dismissed Maharaj’s case seeking to invalidate her husband’s will in favour of an older one, which would have given her control of his entire estate.
Despite his ruling on the will, he partially upheld her claim under the Succession and Married Persons Acts over Dhanraj’s failure to make reasonable financial provisions for her in his will.
Maharaj initially claimed that she was entitled to the house and half of her husband’s share in the business, which would have given her a majority 75 per cent stake.
However, Justice Boodoosingh only awarded her 25 per cent stake in the house.
The minority stake was based on her retaining half ownership of the company and the fact that she solely acquired three properties, including one in Tobago, during the course of her marriage.
Justice Boodoosingh raised concerns over Maharaj’s claims over her alleged financial contributions to the house and the business, which she claimed entitled her to a larger share.
He also upheld the evidence of the lawyer who prepared the will, who claimed that Dhanraj intended to exclude Maharaj when he executed it.
In deciding the appeal, Justice Rahim, who delivered the panel’s judgment, found that Justice Boodoosingh’s decision could not be faulted.
He stated that Justice Boodoosingh was entitled to find that Maharaj’s evidence was not credible.
“His assessment of a 25 per cent share was arrived at through careful, meticulous and balanced consideration of the relevant factors,” Justice Rahim said.
He stated that it did not matter if he would have come to a different conclusion on the share entitlement based on the evidence.
“What matters is whether the decision under appeal is one that no reasonable judge could have reached. This is not one such case,” Justice Rahim said.
Maharaj was represented by Dinesh Rambally and Shaheera Allahar. Darshan was represented by Claire Sinanan.
