Legal Complexities in Purchasing Property from Parda-Nashin Women: A Judicial Perspective
 |
| "Legal Complexities in Purchasing Property from Parda-Nashin Women: A Judicial Perspective" |
پردہ نشین خواتین سے جائیداد خریدنے کے قانونی تقاضے اور عدالتی نظائر
خواتین، خصوصاً ناخواندہ اور پردہ نشین خواتین، کے جائیداد کی خرید و فروخت میں شامل ہونے کے معاملات ہمیشہ محتاط قانونی غور و فکر کے متقاضی ہوتے ہیں۔ حالیہ عدالتی نظیر (2023 PLD 42 Supreme Court) میں یہ واضح کیا گیا کہ اگر کوئی شخص ایسی خواتین سے جائیداد خریدتا ہے، تو اسے اس بات کا ثبوت فراہم کرنا ہوگا کہ یہ معاہدہ مکمل آزادانہ اور کسی دباؤ کے بغیر طے پایا تھا۔
کیس کا پس منظر
اس مقدمے میں ایک شخص نے دعویٰ کیا کہ اس نے دو ناخواندہ پردہ نشین خواتین کی جائیداد خریدی تھی۔ تاہم، خواتین نے عدالت میں مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ انہوں نے جائیداد فروخت نہیں کی، اور مختارِ عام (General Power of Attorney - GPA) رکھنے والے فرد نے ان کے ساتھ دھوکہ دہی کی۔
عدالت کے فیصلے کی بنیاد
سپریم کورٹ نے معاملے کو درج ذیل نکات کی بنیاد پر پرکھا:
- معاہدہ فروخت کی شفافیت: مدعا علیہ کوئی ایسا گواہ یا آزاد ثبوت پیش نہ کر سکا جو یہ ثابت کرتا کہ خواتین نے آزادانہ طور پر جائیداد فروخت کی تھی۔
- قیمت اور ادائیگی کی تفصیلات: فروخت کی مبینہ قیمت اور اس کی ادائیگی کے حوالے سے کوئی مستند مالی ریکارڈ موجود نہیں تھا، جو شکوک پیدا کرتا ہے۔
- پردہ نشین خواتین کے حقوق: چونکہ خواتین ناخواندہ اور پردہ نشین تھیں، اس لیے قانون کے مطابق ضروری تھا کہ وہ معاہدے کو مکمل طور پر سمجھتی ہوں اور انہیں آزاد قانونی مشورہ فراہم کیا گیا ہو۔ ایسا کوئی ریکارڈ موجود نہیں تھا۔
- مختارِ عام کی حیثیت: جس شخص نے یہ معاہدہ کیا، وہ نہ صرف خواتین کا رشتہ دار تھا بلکہ اس پر بددیانتی اور دھوکہ دہی کے شکوک بھی پائے گئے۔
عدالت کا فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ فروخت کا کوئی مستند ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا گیا اور خواتین کو کوئی آزاد قانونی مشورہ فراہم نہیں کیا گیا، اس لیے یہ معاہدہ مشکوک ہے۔ عدالت نے خواتین کے حق میں فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے ان کی جائیداد کو بحال کرنے کا حکم دیا۔
قانونی سبق اور احتیاطی تدابیر
یہ مقدمہ ایک اہم عدالتی نظیر کے طور پر سامنے آیا ہے اور اس سے درج ذیل قانونی نکات اخذ کیے جا سکتے ہیں:
- ناخواندہ یا پردہ نشین خواتین سے جائیداد خریدنے کی صورت میں آزاد قانونی مشورہ فراہم کرنا ضروری ہے۔
- فروخت کے معاہدے کی باقاعدہ رجسٹریشن اور قیمت کی مکمل ادائیگی کا واضح ثبوت ہونا چاہیے۔
- اگر کسی مختارِ عام (GPA) کے ذریعے خریداری ہو رہی ہو تو اس کے اختیار اور نیک نیتی کو بھی ثابت کرنا ضروری ہے۔
- عدالتیں خواتین کے جائیدادی حقوق کی حفاظت کے لیے محتاط نقطہ نظر اپناتی ہیں، خاص طور پر جب معاہدہ مشکوک ہو۔
نتیجہ
یہ عدالتی فیصلہ جائیداد کے خریداروں کے لیے ایک وارننگ ہے کہ وہ ایسے معاملات میں مکمل قانونی احتیاط برتیں، ورنہ بعد میں پیچیدگیوں اور قانونی مسائل کا سامنا کرنا پڑ سکتا ہے۔
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2023 PLD 628 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : PERVAIZ AKHTAR
Side Opponent : Mst. FARIDA BIBI
Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Sale transaction with illiterate housewives /Pardanashin ladies---Proof---Appellant (alleged vendee) claimed that he purchased the suit property from the respondent, who was the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the plaintiffs (two illiterate housewives)---Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the appellant stating therein that they were the owners in possession of the suit property and that they never sold the suit property to the appellant---[Per Ayesha A. Malik [Majority view]: Appellant admitted that plaintiffs were illiterate housewives and resided in the same vicinity; he also admitted that respondent was a property agent and that he had purchased other properties from him in the past---Appellant did not produce any evidence of the sale in his favour as there were no witnesses to the sale or payment of the sale consideration nor does the revenue record detiail the sale and payment of sale consideration in the presence of the revenue officer---Furthermore, the appellant relied on a mutation being a copy of the Register Dakhal Kharaj Mahaal to show that the suit property was sold to him by respondent---Said mutation providesd that there was an oral sale through the GPA but gave no details of the oral sale and simply mentioned the sale consideration of Rs. 148,000/----Register Dakhal Kharaj Mahaal was an incomplete document as the report mentioned in Column No.14 was not relied upon by the appellant to establish the oral sale in his favour---There was also no report by the revenue officer to verify the oral sale in favour of the appellant---Furthermore, the mere fact that the GPA was executed did not establish the sale in favour of the appellant, as he was required to provide independent evidence of the oral sale in his favour---Importantly the GPA did not appear in Court, nor did any witness to establish the oral sale---Since the appellant and respondent were known to each other and had been doing business together, therefore, the element of the fraud with the plaintiffs could not be ruled out---In this case, there was no independent advice given to Pardanashin women---Moreover, respondent being the GPA holder did not inform plaintiffs of the sale in favour of the appellant---Furthermore, even though the appellant resided in the same village, he made no effort to ascertain whether plaintiffs intended to sell their property through the GPA to him---Such fact became relevant when seen in the context of the evidence with reference to the sale consideration as plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for Rs.1,600,000/ - whereas the appellant purchased the property from the GPA for Rs.148,000/----Given that respondent executed the agreement to sell with plaintiffs and agreed to pay them Rs.1,600,000 / - for the sale of the property, he betrayed their trust, did not complete the sale as agreed under the agreement to sell and instead sold the suit property to the appellant through an oral sale---High Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs]---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J [Minority view]: Agreement between the plaintiffs and the respondent was evidence of the fact that they sold the disputed property to the respondent, followed by which a registered power of attorney was executed in his favour---Respondent exercised his authority by alienating the disputed property in the name of the appellant through the disputed mutation----Factum of this sale and the number of the disputed mutation was already in the knowledge of plaintiffs, who subsequently incorporated the same into their agreement with the respondent, with their free will and consent---Plaintiffs' had a grievance against the respondent only as far as the outstanding amount was concerned---Appellant in his written statement and in his statement recorded before the Trial Court contended that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,600,000/- as consideration for the disputed property to respondent, whereafter the property was Transfer red to him through the disputed mutation---It was the case of plaintiffs that respondent paid them an amount of Rs.100,000/- each and delivered the cheque for the remainder amount which was subsequently dishonoured---Such fact further supported the contention of the appellant that he had already paid the entirety of the consideration amount to respondent---Besides, the stance of the appellant was neither challenged by plaintiffs nor was it contested by respondent---Moreover, the appellant was not party to the agreements between the plaintiffs and the respondent, as such, was not bound by their terms and conditions---In such circumstances, the present suit based on the agreements was not maintainable against the appellant---Respondent was proceeded against ex parte by the Trial Court and also did not appear before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court---Such non-appearance on behalf of respondent suggested mala fide on his part and his collusion with the plaintiffs, as he was not only their authorized attorney, but also their nephew---Plaintiffs had failed to make out a case against the appellant who was a bona fide purchaser---Suit of plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by the Trial and Appellate Courts---Appeal was dismissed.