Oral agreement vs registered agreement

Oral agreement and registered agreement

مقدمے کے اہم نکات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. زبانی معاہدے کا ثبوت

مدعی زبانی معاہدے کی جزئیات (تفصیلات) اور شرائط عدالت میں ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہا۔

زبانی معاہدے کے گواہان یا پیشگی ادائیگی (earnest money) کے ثبوت پیش نہیں کیے گئے۔

مہر فروش اور ریونیو افسر کو پیش نہ کرنا زبانی معاہدے کے دعوے کو مزید کمزور کر گیا۔

2. دو متضاد تحریری بیانات

جواب دہندہ نمبر 2 نے دو مختلف تحریری بیانات دیے، جن میں سے پہلا غیر مصدقہ (unverified) اور دوسرا مصدقہ (verified) تھا۔

عدالت نے دوسرے بیان کو معتبر قرار دیا اور پہلے بیان کو مسترد کر دیا۔

3. رجسٹرڈ بیع نامے کی ترجیح

رجسٹرڈ بیع نامہ، جو درخواست گزار کے حق میں تھا، تمام قانونی تقاضے پورا کرتا تھا اور مکمل ادائیگی کے ثبوت کے ساتھ رجسٹرڈ تھا۔

عدالت نے رجسٹرڈ بیع نامے کو زبانی معاہدے پر ترجیح دی۔

4. مدعی کی عدم تیاری

مدعی نے معاہدے کی تکمیل کے لیے کوئی عملی اقدام نہیں اٹھایا، جیسے بقیہ قیمت عدالت میں جمع کروانا یا رجسٹریشن کی کوشش کرنا۔

عدالت نے مدعی کے معاہدے کی تکمیل کی سنجیدگی اور ارادے کو مشکوک قرار دیا۔

5. زبانی معاہدے اور مسودہ بیع نامہ کے تضادات

زبانی معاہدے اور غیر رجسٹرڈ مسودہ بیع نامہ کے گواہ مختلف تھے، جس سے معاہدے کی صداقت مزید کمزور ہوئی۔

6. بونا فائیڈ خریدار کو تحفظ

عدالت نے درخواست گزار کو "جائز خریدار" (Bona Fide Purchaser) قرار دیا، جس نے رجسٹرڈ بیع نامے کے ذریعے جائیداد خریدی اور قیمت مکمل ادا کی تھی۔

عدالت نے سیکشن 41 (Transfer of Property Act) اور سیکشن 27(b) (Specific Relief Act) کے تحت خریدار کو قانونی تحفظ فراہم کیا۔

7. عدالت کا فیصلہ

زبانی معاہدے کو شواہد کی کمی، تضادات، اور قانونی تقاضے پورے نہ ہونے کی بنیاد پر مسترد کیا گیا۔

رجسٹرڈ بیع نامے کو قانونی، ثابت شدہ اور قابل اعتماد قرار دیتے ہوئے درخواست گزار کے حق میں فیصلہ دیا گیا۔

یہ نکات عدالت کے فیصلے کی بنیادی وجوہات کو واضح کرتے ہیں اور زبانی معاہدے کے قانونی کمزوریوں کو اجاگر کرتے ہیں۔

2024 C L C 1764

[Lahore]

Before Abid Hussain Chattha, J

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (deceased) through L.Rs.----Petitioner

Versus

MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.2168 of 2014, heard on 17th April, 2024.

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---

----Ss.41 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.17 & 79---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.27(b), 42 & 54---Sale deed---Proof---Non-production of stamp vender and revenue officer as witnesses to prove first sale deed---Effect---Pleadings----Scope---Non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Effect---Execution of two sale deeds by respondent No.2 being father/natural guardian of minors---First was allegedly executed in furtherance of oral sale in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff, which remained unregistered due to paucity of guardianship certificate---Second was executed in favour of petitioner (admittedly bona fide purchaser for value without notice), which was duly registered and possession was given to the petitioner---Suit for declaration with permanent injunction was instituted by respondent No.1 challenging he sale made in favour of the petitioner, in which respondent No.2 filed two written statements i.e. one in favour of respondent No.1 conceding his claim and other denying the same---Said suit was concurrently decreed---Contention of the petitioner was that no details of the oral transaction had been mentioned in his plaint and marginal witnesses of first sale deed were not produced by respondent No.1 in his evidence, therefore, requirement of law had not been fulfilled---Validity---There was a discrepancy between two written statements submitted by respondent No.2 that the first written statement was not verified on oath and the second written statement was verified and also challenged the authenticity of the first statement---Respondent No. 2 claimed that the first statement was neither signed nor authorized by him---Trial Court accepted said challenge and proceeded to frame issues and record evidence without relying on the first statement, consequently, it was inappropriate for the courts below to use the first statement as an admission against respondent No. 2's claim---Respondent No.1 did not list the particulars of oral transaction in the plaint and as such did not independently prove the oral transaction---Evidence qua oral sale transaction of respondent No. 1 was not only beyond the scope of pleadings but was also discrepant and contradictory particularly with respect to details of oral transaction and receipt of earnest money by respondent No. 2---No stamp vendor was produced to prove the procurement of stamp papers for the alleged draft sale deed---No revenue official was produced with respect to denial of registration of first sale deed---Second sale deed was executed and registered and there was no explanation to the effect that if the same could be registered why draft sale deed in favour of Respondent No. I was declined---There was no evidence that alleged witnesses of the draft sale deed were also witnesses of oral transaction---No target date was alleged with respect to the oral sale transaction---No effort was made to deposit balance sale consideration in Court which admittedly had not been paid till the decision of the suit to demonstrate the readiness and willingness on part of respondent No.1 to perform his part of the oral contract and his financial ability to discharge his obligation---Respondent No.1 could not prove oral sale transaction---Overwhelming evidence was on record, whereby, Respondent No. 2 admitted to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner after receiving entire sale consideration, therefore, there was no occasion not to give preference to a valid and lawfully registered subsequent sale deed over an unproved oral sale transaction---Petitioner as bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice was entitled to the protection accorded to him by S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877----Judgments of courts below being result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record as well as misapplication of law could not sustain---Civil Revision was allowed accordingly.

Saddaruddin (since deceased) through LRs. v. Sultan Khan (since deceased) through LRs and others 2021 SCMR 642 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 rel.

S.M. Zeeshan Mirza and Inam ul Haq Buttar for Petitioners.

Liaqat Ali Malik for Respondent No.1.

Respondents Nos.2 to 8 Proceeded ex parte on 23rd November, 2023.

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.