Oral Agreements in Land Disputes (Civil Petition No. 174-K of 2022)

In the context of the legal principles governing oral agreements, the judgment in Civil Petition No. 174-K of 2022 before the Supreme Court of Pakistan provides a comprehensive analysis of the necessity for explicitly detailing all terms and conditions agreed upon orally between the parties within the pleadings, substantiated by strong and independent evidence.

The case centred on the petitioner’s claim for specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The petitioner asserted that the agreement was reached with the respondent through her father and was partially executed with payments made and possession transferred. However, this claim was ultimately unsuccessful at both the appellate level and in the Supreme Court.

The judgment reiterates the established principle that while oral agreements are valid and enforceable, they must be substantiated with the clearest and most satisfactory evidence. The court made reference to several key precedents:

1. Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali (PLD 2003 SC 31): It was ruled that the party relying on an oral agreement must prove it according to the definition of an agreement under Section 2(h) of the Contract Act, 1872.
2. Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605): This case emphasized that a party claiming an oral agreement must clearly specify the date, time, place, and names of witnesses in their pleadings. These elements are sine qua non to proving an oral agreement, particularly in cases involving the sale of immovable property.
3. Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74): The court held that improvements or additions to the details of an oral agreement during the evidence stage, which were not included in the initial pleadings, are not permissible. This is because such practices are prone to abuse, leading to dishonest and fraudulent claims.

In the present case, the petitioner failed to meet these stringent requirements. The court found that the pleadings did not detail the specifics of the oral agreement, such as the date, time, place, and witnesses. Furthermore, the petitioner’s evidence was deemed inconsistent and contradictory, lacking the independent corroboration necessary to establish the existence of the oral agreement.

The court also reiterated the principle that no amount of evidence can cure a defect in the pleadings. Citing Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 469) and Abrar Ahmad v. Irshad Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 331), it was held that the petitioner could not introduce new factual assertions at the evidence stage that were not originally part of the pleadings.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the judgments of the appellate and High Court, which had previously found no merit in the petitioner’s claim for specific performance based on the alleged oral agreement.

This judgment reinforces the legal doctrine that oral agreements, particularly concerning immovable property, must be meticulously documented in pleadings and supported by unassailable evidence. Without meeting these stringent standards, claims based on oral agreements are unlikely to succeed in the courts of Pakistan.

The case of Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh through L.Rs v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others involved a dispute over the specific performance of an oral agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The precise facts that led to the court’s observations and the ultimate dismissal of the petition were as follows:

1. The Oral Agreement: The petitioner claimed that an oral agreement was made with the respondent (Ms. Urooj Fatima) through her father, Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, for the sale of agricultural land measuring 3-34 acres situated in Survey No. 42 in Deh Qadirpur, Taluka and District Ghotki. The petitioner alleged that the respondent’s father, acting on her behalf, sold portions of the land to various farmers, including the petitioner, at a rate of Rs. 30,000 per acre.
2. Payment and Possession: The petitioner claimed to have paid an advance for the land and to have taken possession of 1 acre on or around 19 June 1993. Subsequently, when the land was measured on 26 June 1993, it was discovered that the petitioner possessed an additional 37 Ghuntas within the same survey number. The petitioner alleged that he then paid an additional Rs. 27,750 for this disputed land.
3. Mutation and Dispute: The petitioner alleged that despite the oral agreement and payments made, the disputed land was not mutated (officially transferred) in his favour. Instead, respondents No. 2-6 allegedly colluded to unlawfully have the land mutated in their favour through a mutation entry made on 27 June 1993. Upon discovering this, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Sukkur for rectification.
4. Arbitration: To resolve the dispute, the parties agreed to arbitration by one Dadan Khan. The arbitrator’s decision, dated 22 September 1995, purportedly favoured the petitioner, with respondents No. 2-6 agreeing to correct the mutation entries. However, despite the arbitrator’s decision, the corrections were not made, leading the petitioner to seek further legal recourse.
5. Lower Courts’ Decisions: The petitioner filed a civil suit (F.C. No. 27 of 1999) for specific performance of the oral agreement, along with a declaration and injunction. The trial court initially ruled in the petitioner’s favour, decreeing the suit on 20 May 2005. However, respondents No. 2-6 appealed the decision (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2005) in the District Court of Ghotki, which overturned the trial court’s decision on 18 August 2006. The High Court of Sindh upheld the appellate court’s decision on 29 November 2021, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court.
6. Supreme Court Proceedings: The Supreme Court focused on whether the petitioner had adequately proven the existence of the oral agreement. The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for proving an oral agreement. Specifically:
   • The petitioner did not detail the specific terms of the agreement, such as the date, time, place, and names of witnesses, in the pleadings.
   • The evidence provided by the petitioner was inconsistent and not corroborated by independent, credible witnesses. The receipt for payment produced by the petitioner was found to be dubious, with overwritten signatures, and the relevant witnesses (including the respondent’s father and the individual who allegedly received payment) were not examined.
   • The petitioner’s case was further weakened by contradictory testimonies from his own witnesses.
7. Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that oral agreements, especially those involving the sale of immovable property, must be substantiated by clear, consistent, and independent evidence. The petitioner’s failure to meet these evidentiary requirements led to the dismissal of the petition.

The court’s statements on the necessity of clearly stating and proving oral agreements in pleadings were directly influenced by the deficiencies in the petitioner’s case—namely, the lack of detailed pleadings and credible, independent evidence to support the alleged oral agreement.

How does this impact future decisions on oral agreements particularly where land is concerned?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hafiz Qari Abdul Fateh through L.Rs v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others will likely have a significant impact on future cases involving oral agreements, particularly those concerning land transactions. The ruling underscores the stringent requirements for proving such agreements, which may influence both litigants and lower courts in the following ways:

1. Heightened Burden of Proof: The court’s emphasis on the necessity for clear, detailed, and independent evidence in proving oral agreements, particularly in land transactions, reinforces the burden on parties seeking to enforce such agreements. Future litigants will need to ensure that they meticulously document all aspects of the agreement, including the date, time, place, and witnesses, within their pleadings. This may deter parties from relying on oral agreements alone, knowing the evidentiary burden they will face in court.
2. Discouragement of Oral Agreements for Land Sales: The decision may discourage individuals from entering into oral agreements for the sale of immovable property altogether. Given the strict evidentiary requirements highlighted by the court, parties may prefer to formalise agreements in writing to avoid the complexities and challenges associated with proving oral agreements in court. This could lead to an increase in the use of written contracts for land transactions, which are easier to enforce legally.
3. Precedent for Lower Courts: The ruling provides a clear precedent for lower courts on how to handle cases involving oral agreements for land. Lower courts will likely adopt a more cautious and rigorous approach in evaluating the evidence presented in such cases, ensuring that the legal principles outlined by the Supreme Court are strictly adhered to. This could lead to more dismissals of cases where the party relying on an oral agreement fails to meet the high standard of proof required.
4. Mitigation of Fraud and Dishonesty: The Supreme Court’s decision also aims to mitigate the potential for fraud and dishonesty in land transactions. By insisting on detailed pleadings and strong evidence, the court has made it more difficult for unscrupulous parties to fabricate or manipulate claims based on oral agreements. This could contribute to greater integrity in land transactions and reduce the number of fraudulent claims brought before the courts.
5. Evolving Legal Doctrine: This decision may influence the evolving legal doctrine on the enforceability of oral agreements in Pakistan, particularly in relation to immovable property. Future decisions may further refine the requirements for proving oral agreements, possibly leading to additional legal developments or even legislative changes that provide clearer guidelines or impose stricter formalities for land transactions.
6. Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners: For legal practitioners, the decision serves as a crucial reminder to advise clients against relying on oral agreements for land transactions. Lawyers will need to ensure that any such agreements are well-documented and that all necessary details are included in the pleadings if a dispute arises. This will help to protect clients’ interests and increase the likelihood of success in litigation.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to set a high standard for the enforcement of oral agreements concerning land, impacting how such cases are approached in the future. It promotes legal certainty by encouraging formalised agreements and imposes a rigorous evidentiary burden on parties seeking to enforce oral contracts in the context of land sales.

Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889

Email : [email protected]

https://joshandmakinternational.com