The Supreme Court of Pakistan has set aside an order for the transfer of land based on an alleged oral agreement dating back to 1992, ruling that mere possession or long-term occupation does not establish ownership. The court allowed the appeal filed by Ghulam Ali.
Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan issued the written judgment, stating that a strict standard of proof applies in cases involving oral agreements. The ruling held that the alleged 1992 oral agreement was not proven in accordance with the requirements of law.
The Supreme Court declared void the judgments of the Lahore High Court, the Additional District Judge, and the trial court. The court clarified that to establish an oral agreement, complete details regarding the date, time, place, terms, and witnesses must be provided. It further held that evidence deviating from the written pleadings cannot be considered admissible.
According to the written judgment, the plaintiffs claimed that a settlement had been reached in 1992 after the acquittal of an accused in a murder case involving their father. It was asserted that a jirga decided Ghulam Ali would transfer 32 kanals of land to the plaintiffs and that possession of the land was handed over to them following the settlement.
The plaintiffs further contended that in 2016, Ghulam Ali refused to have the mutation formally registered.
The background of the case reveals that the trial court had initially dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim. However, on appeal, the suit for specific performance was decreed. The Additional District Judge and subsequently the Lahore High Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that a claim based on an oral agreement must be established through solid and unimpeachable evidence; otherwise, such claims cannot be sustained in law.