Registered sale deed cannot be invalidated merely for lack of buyer’s signatures: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a registered sale deed cannot be declared invalid or ineffective solely on the ground that it does not bear the buyer’s signatures or thumb impressions, observing that a party alleging fraud must provide specific particulars and evidence to substantiate the claim.

In a judgment authored by Justice Shahid Waheed, the court held that a registered document is presumed to be legally valid unless the party challenging it establishes otherwise through cogent evidence. A mere allegation of fraud does not automatically shift the burden of proof to the opposing party.

The Supreme Court announced the judgment, while deciding two appeals concerning ownership of 64 kanals and one marla of agricultural land. A two-member bench comprising Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed allowed the appeals, set aside the Lahore High Court and appellate court judgments, and restored the trial court’s decision dismissing the claim.

According to the case record, Nasreen Zahra had challenged a registered sale deed dated May 10, 1976, concerning inherited land, alleging that it had been procured through fraud. She claimed that she learned about the transfer only a few days before filing the suit, after obtaining information from the local revenue official, and also challenged the relevant mutation and revenue record.

The trial court dismissed her suit on December 23, 2005, citing a delay of nearly 20 years and the absence of evidence supporting the allegation of fraud. However, the appellate court accepted her claim on August 23, 2006, and the Lahore High Court upheld that decision on June 22, 2015.

The Supreme Court observed that a plaintiff alleging fraud must clearly explain who committed it, when it occurred and how it was carried out. Such essential particulars were missing from the claim in the present case, and a general allegation that a document was obtained through fraud was insufficient.

The judgment also addressed the legal protection available to a pardanashin woman, observing that her status alone does not automatically invalidate a document bearing her signature or thumb impression. The court said it must be examined whether she understood the nature and implications of the document and consented to it freely.

Distinguishing between a sale agreement and a registered sale deed, the court observed that the former concerns a promise to complete a future transaction, whereas the latter transfers ownership. Legal precedents relating to sale agreements, therefore, cannot be applied indiscriminately to registered sale deeds.