saifuddin h attarwala (own) 29 October 2016

Oral agreement

please advise and frwrd the judgement details regarding oral agreement for sale

WE HAVE PURCHSED THE PROPERTY FROM THE PERSON KNOWING SINCE LAST FORTY YEARS AND THE SAID PROPERTY IS IN OUR POSSESSION SINCE LAST THRITY FIVE YEARS HAVING THE DOCUMENTRY EVEDENCE OF POSSESSION.

THE AGREEMENT WAS ORAL BUT THERE ARE WITNESSES WHILE PERFORMING THE ORAL AGREEMENT.

SINCE THEY REFUSED TO PERFORM THE DEED , WE HAVE FILED THE SUIT AGAINST THEM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.THE MATTER IS IN COURT AND WE ARE I N POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN TOTAL .

PLEASE FORWARD THE JUDGMENT DETAILS FAVORING THE ORAL AGREEMENT , YOUR OPINION.

KIND COOPERATION IS SOLICITED

Reply Follow

5 Replies

rajeev sharma (Advocate Ex senior manager law ) 29 October 2016

the Registration Act requires that any sale where the value of property is more then rs100 the sale has to be reduced in writing and document is required to be registered compulserily. So you wont find any judgement supporting any oral sale. The evidence Act further says that any document registration whereof is compulsry may not be accepted in evdence of any fact.

Your suit for specific performence is hihly improbable to secceed

I.S.Roy,Advocate (Advocate) 29 October 2016

Dear SHA,

Though I am civil expert but I may not get time properly to Interact with this great web site . To-day lucky I have good time to advice you who required such help . So, I am giving my helping had to support your case in view of oral agreement kindly verify the judgments that held oral agreement also valid 1998 (6 ) ALT 399; Not necessary agreement of sale must be in writing. Oral agreement of sale must be proved through cogent and acceptable evidence 2013 (5) ALT 546 (DB)

with regards

I S Roy, Advocate

Suri.Sravan Kumar (senior) 29 October 2016

AP High Court inGomi Bai And Ors. vs Uma Rastogi And Anr. on 29 December, 2004 in para 63 held as under
63. Yet another aspect of the matter is the question of possession. It is vehemently contended by the appellant's Counsel that the appellant has been in possession of suit schedule land from the date of agreement till she was forcibly dispossessed by fifth defendant in March, 1982. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that an inference has to be drawn of existence of oral agreement of sale. The submission is misconceived. When a person comes to the Court alleging oral agreement of sale also alleging that he/she had been put in possession pursuant to such oral agreement, the proof of possession independently from the proof of oralagreement of sale may give rise to a different cause of action, but certainly not for specific performance of contract of sale. Further, when the oral agreement of sale is disbelieved, assuming that the person has proved possession, the Court cannot draw an inference of the existence of the oral agreement of sale by proof of possession. As held by the Supreme Court in Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, , and Brij Mohan v. Sugra Begum, , a person seeking specific performance of contract of sale must prove the existence of valid and enforceable contract and definite and clear terms of contract. The jurisdiction to direct the defendants to specifically perform their part of contract is itself based on valid and enforceable contract. In the absence of any such contract, it is futile for anyone to contend to draw an inference as to the existence of contract from a mere possession.