Verbal agreement is valid or invalid in court of law

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 16 April 2023 This query is : Resolved
On good faith I have make part payment to purchase a property. Written agreement is not done, but the owner handover procession of said property before registration.

Since there is no written agreement, by muscle power with the help of notorious agents they repeatedly want to ousting me from the property.

How can I get any relief at court ? Please help me.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (Expert) 16 April 2023
Oral agreement is valid in eye of law and you can file suit for specific performance of contract on basis of oral agreement . Oral agreement may be proved by cogent evidence simultaneously you have to file petition for temporary injunction to protect your possession of property.

N.K.Assumi (Expert) 17 April 2023
There is no Law that prohibits oral agreement.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 17 April 2023
Very well analysed, opined and advised by senior expert Mr. Bhartesh Goyal, I concur.

It is advisable to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for better appreciation of facts of the case, professional guidance and necessary proceeding.

P. Venu (Expert) 17 April 2023
Yes, the oral agreement, if supported by cogent evidence, is valid in law to seek a decree of specific performance. You have the advantage that you are in possession of the property.

Also, has the prior title deeds been handed over to you?

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 17 April 2023
No Sir, prior title deed is not handed over to me. However, I have collected certified copy of prior title deed. I haveforced to also filed 144 CRPC wherein the Court ordered OP's not to ousting me without due process of law. The local police submitted a report that, I am in possession of the property & OP's are repeatedly trying to forcefully vacate me from the property.

Sir, what is congent evidence ?
Example please.

P. Venu (Expert) 17 April 2023
Cogent means clear, logical and convincing.

For an agreement to be enforceable it should be proved to be a Contract in terms of Section 10 of the Contract Act -

"Section 10 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
10. What agreements are contracts.—All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void. —All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void." Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents."

The dispute or controversy requires solved through a civil action ; intervention of police or an action on the basis of CrPC could be little avail to you.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 18 April 2023
How can a court order "not to dispossess without due process of law" under section 144 CrPC as stated you as the Criminal Court have no jurisdiction over the subject matter, governed by provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Civil dispute).
Recheck.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 18 April 2023
Such a order has been passed 144 CRPC, further my advocate has advised me to file 145 CRPC case.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 18 April 2023
Section 145 cr.p.c. : An action under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires the Magistrate to be convinced that there is a probability of a breach of the peace, either by a police report or other information; the mere existence of a land dispute is insufficient to grant him jurisdiction.
Therefore you must exercise caution while trying to invoke this section in an application to the executive magistrate.
If on a complaint to the local police about the endangering situation or persisting threats from the opposite party is prevalent and the police is submitting its report confirming the complaint's contents, the executive magistrate considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct under section 144 Cr.P.C. issue an order to an individual or the general public in a particular place or area to abstain from a certain act.
Thus it is only a restraint order and not even a temporary solution to your civil matter. Therefore for proper remedy you may have to approach civil court alone unless you will be suffering more from such anti social elements.

K Rajasekharan (Expert) 18 April 2023
Even though oral agreement is valid in law in general, there are states like Kerala where registration is required for an agreement to transfer any immoveable property.

Therefore, kindly examine the position in your state, in regard to the need for registration.

If such a law as in Kerala is in force in your state, oral agreement has no legal validity at all.

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 18 April 2023
Sir, I am from West Bengal.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 19 April 2023
Please check with your lawyer as the order stated to have been passed which is under the authority/ jurisdiction of a civil court and not a criminal court under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as posted by you.

P. Venu (Expert) 20 April 2023
The Supreme Court has held, in the recent Judgment dated 10th April 2023 in the case of R.Hemalatha v. Kasthuri (Civil Appeal No. 2535/2023) that - An unregistered document affecting
immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property
Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific
performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected
by registered instrument. In this context para 12 and 13 repays study -

"12. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the proviso to Section 49 came to be
inserted vide Act No.21 of 1929 and thereafter, Section 17(1A) came to be inserted by Act
No. 48 of 2001 with effect from 24.09.2001 by which the documents containing contracts
to transfer or consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53 of the
Transfer of Properties Act is made compulsorily to be registered if they have been
executed on or after 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such
commencement, then there shall have no effect for the purposes of said Section 53A. So,
the exception to the proviso to Section 49 is provided under Section 17(1A) of the
Registration Act. Otherwise, the proviso to Section 49 with respect to the documents other
than referred to in Section 17(1A) shall be applicable.
13. Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an
unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or
the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract
in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as
evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument,
however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf of
either of the parties that the document/ Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the
category of document as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon
proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered document in question
namely unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a
suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49"

To my knowledge, there are no special State-wise provisions in force in Kerala or in any other State.

Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 21 April 2023
Respected Mr. P Venu ji,
The ratio of judgment is qua evidentiary value of a written document, whether it has to be registered or unregistered.
On the other hand query of author petain to validity of "oral" and "un-written" agreement to sell.
Am I right Mr./ Ms. Anonymous ???

P. Venu (Expert) 21 April 2023
Respected Shri Vashistaji,
In this context I had suggested in my earlier posting that -
"Yes, the oral agreement, if supported by cogent evidence, is valid in law to seek a decree of specific performance. You have the advantage that you are in possession of the property."

My suggestion has been based on a number of High Court Decisions, more particularly, the decision of the Kerala High Court dated 7th April 2022 in the case of Bhasi vs, Thoman (https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-high-court-specific-performance-oral-agreement-cogent-evidence-199228).

Of course, the ratio laid down has been that a decree for specific performance cannot be granted based on an oral agreement unless there is cogent evidence to prove such agreement in the first place. However, as Section 10 of the Contract Act makes no distinction in respect of oral and written agreement except as to the provision that -
" Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India, and not hereby expressly repealed, by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents."

To my knowledge, there is law in force in our country, other than the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, that an agreement for transfer of property be in writing or be registered.