Supreme Court
Action No. 112 of 1977
25th February, 1982.
Moe, C. J.

Mr. Dean Barrow for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Manuel Sosa for the Defendant.

Real Property - Equal - Application for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land- Agreement for the sale of land- Agreement for sale evidence of receipt-Receipt alleged to be a forgery.

J U D G M E N T

In this Action the Plaintiff claims specific performance of an agreement for the sale of land to him by his father Ben Busano, deceased, of whose estate the Defendant is the Administratrix. He also seeks an injunction to restrain the Defendant, her servants or agents from entering the land concerned and clearing it and removing produce therefrom.

The Plaintiff claims that on the 19th November, 1976 the deceased agreed to sell him 10 acres of land situate on the Melinda Road in the Stann Creek District and known as Block No. 154. In pursuance of that agreement, he paid the deceased the agreed purchase price of $100.00. The deceased died without having executed a proper conveyance. The Plaintiff averred that the deceased allowed him to go into possession of the said land before his death and he has been in possession ever since.

In support of his claim the Plaintiff and one William Lino gave evidence. The Plaintiff also tendered in evidence a receipt which he said the deceased gave him.

The Defendant, in the Defence filed, pleaded that the deceased did not enter into an agreement to sell the Plaintiff the land, that the Plaintiff did not pay to the deceased and the deceased did not receive $100.00. That any document purporting to evidence such an agreement is a forgery. There was no evidence from the Defence Counsel for the Defendant having elected to stand or fall on a submission that there was no case for the Defendant to answer. The Court must ,therefore, decide this matter on the present state of the evidence.

The Plaintiff's evidence was that in June, 1976 he returned to Belize from the U.S.A. and his father Ben Busano, who had been ill and ailing asked him to look after his farm Block No. 154 on Melinda Road, Stann Creek. His father was in the Dangriga Hospital for some time and he visited his father regularly in hospital.
On a visit to him on the 19th November, 1976, his father asked him to get a receipt book so that they could make a transaction on the farm. He went for the receipt book and on his return one William Lino was there. His father asked him how much money he had on him and he told him a little over hundred. His father told him to count out a hundred which he did and which his father placed on a small desk beside his bed at the hospital. His father dictated to him and he wrote in the receipt book. His father signed, then William Lino signed. His father gave him back the hundred dollars and told him to share it among his grandchildren. He kept the receipt in the receipt book until he saw his lawyer about it. His father died on the 3rd December, 1976. He went into possession of the farm immediately after his father's death. The receipt was admitted in evidence.

William Lino said that on the 19th November, 1976, Ben Busano called him to his house at corner of Gans Avenue and Melinda Road. He went to the house and soon after the son Cecil Busano arrived. Ben Busano told him (Lino) he wanted him to witness certain things. The father dictated to the son. The father signed and he signed as a witness. The son handed one hundred dollars to his father. The father counted the money, said something and gave back the money to his son. He identified his signature and the deceased's signature on the document. The father took the receipt book, tore out the receipt and had it on the table in front of him while having a discussion with his son. His evidence was that he never visited Ben Busano at the hospital, he tried to once but he was turned back. That Busano went into hospital two days after the transaction.

In keeping with the Defence filed it was suggested to both Cecil Busano and William Lino that the alleged transaction never took place. I state straightaway that the inconsistencies in the evidence raised considerable doubt in my mind that the transaction did take place. Indeed one limb of the submission on behalf of the Defendant was that the evidence was so unreliable that the Court can't act upon it. Inclining, therefore, to doubt that there was such a transaction I paid particular attention to the document admitted in evidence which the Plaintiff said was a receipt given by his father. The inconsistencies in the evidence made me suspicious of the circumstance that the receipt should be in the handwriting of the Plaintiff. The firm signature of the deceased appearing on the document does not suggest that the deceased found difficulty in writing.

Further, I did not get the impression from the manner in which evidence was given was that there was a difference in the instrument used for writing and signing the document. Yet on a look at it, it is clear to me that the signature of Ben Busano is in an ink different from the writing of Cecil Busano and William Lino both of the latter being in the same ink. The signature, however, is there and is said by both the Plaintiff and William Lino to be that of Ben Busano. There was no challenge nor dispute that the signature was that of Ben Busano. The Defence is that the document is a forgery. I took that to mean that while Ben Busano's signature appears on it, the document is telling a lie. It appeared to me ,therefore, that I had to be satisfied that Ben Busano's signature was put on the document in the circumstances alleged. There was great divergence between the evidence of the Plaintiff and his witness William Lino, as to the circumstances in which Ben Busano's signature got on the document. There is more than one way in which the deceased could have placed his signature on the document. After careful consideration, I held on a balance of probabilities that there was not an execution of the document in the manner described to the Court.

In the result I was unable to conclude that a transaction took place in which the deceased agreed to sell Block 154 to his son for the sum of $100.00.

I, accordingly, dismiss the Plaintiff's claim and enter judgment for the Defendant.

-----------OO----------