No, according to a 2023 Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling, a land sale agreement cannot be enforced if only one co-owner signed it without the other co-owner’s approval.
A handshake agreement in a Punjabi village became a legal battle that lasted for decades. A 10-marla plot, the inheritance of two families, and one crucial question were all at risk:
Is it possible for one co-owner to sell the entire property without the other’s approval?
A Handshake in Mandi Bahauddin Starts the Story
A 10-marla plot was jointly owned by two men in the village fields of Mandi Bahauddin, Punjab, in 1993. Each of them owned half of the business.
One co-owner agreed to sell the entire plot for Rs. 160,000 that year, keeping Rs. 70,000 as earnest money. Excited, the buyer trusted the transaction. Villagers witnessed the signing of a written agreement, and the buyer anticipated receiving the sale deed in March 1994 following payment of the remaining balance.
However, there was a secret issue.
The agreement was never signed by the other co-owner, who is the seller’s equal partner. He didn’t consent, wasn’t present, and wasn’t consulted.
Ownership records were not examined by the buyer. He thought the agreement applied to the entire country.
Years of Quiet, Then War
The sale never happened. The seller’s family did not carry out the deed, despite the buyer’s insistence that he was prepared to pay the remaining amount.
By 2008, both co-owners had died. The conflict was passed down to their descendants. Frustrated, the buyer filed a lawsuit for specific performance, requesting that the court uphold the sale or at the very least issue a declaration that the agreement was legitimate.
According to the seller’s heirs, the transaction was authentic since the buyer actually owned the land, witnesses attested to the payment, and money had been made.
However, the heirs of the other co-owner remained steadfast:
Their father never gave his signature or approval.
The land was unpartitioned, meaning it was joined and not divided.
The agreement was null and void without the signatures of both owners.
The Trial Court’s Differing Views
The trial court partially agreed with the buyer in 2008.
The agreement was deemed authentic.
However, because not all owners had agreed, it rejected specific performance and declared the contract to be incomplete.
Reversals and Appeals
The conflict intensified:
2010 (Appellate Court): Declared the agreement unenforceable, overturning the trial court’s decision.
2016 (Lahore High Court): Upheld the appellate decision by dismissing the buyer’s revision.
2023 (Supreme Court): Pakistan’s highest court heard the last appeal.
Now it was obvious what the question was:
👉 If only one co-owner signs a sale agreement, can it still be enforced?
The Relevant Legal Principles
The Supreme Court examined fundamental laws:
Section 10 of the Contract Act of 1872 states that all parties must concur on the same terms in order for a contract to be deemed valid.
Courts can only enforce specific performance under the Specific Relief Act of 1877 if the contract is complete and legal.
Article 113 of the Limitation Act of 1908 states that a suit for specific performance must be filed within three years of the date of the refusal.
Written contracts must be precise, definite, and verifiable, according to the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984.
Caveat Emptor: Before signing contracts, buyers should confirm ownership and title.
Weaknesses of the Buyer
The buyer depended on partial payment and witnesses. However, the defects were lethal:
The second co-owner (half owner) did not give their consent.
The land is vaguely described as having “10 marlas in village” with no boundaries.
Unpartitioned land: neither seller owned a specific piece of it.
Delay—14 years after the 1994 sale date that was promised, he filed a lawsuit in 2008.
These flaws prevented enforcement.
The Court’s Considered Precedents
According to Farzand Ali (PLD 2015 SC 187), agreements that are not signed by all necessary parties are void.
Muhammad Sattar (2017 SCMR 98): If a one-sided agreement is shown to be legitimate, it may occasionally bind a party; however, it must have explicit terms and signatures.
In this case, the 1993 agreement was unclear and did not have the signatures of all owners.
The ruling of the Supreme Court
The buyer’s appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on January 16, 2023.
The decision was made:
The agreement could not be enforced without the second co-owner’s approval.
The claim was further undermined by the 14-year delay and the ambiguous property description.
Caveat emptor, or buyer beware, applied to the buyer’s failure to verify ownership records.
As a result, the non-signing co-owner’s heirs kept their portion. The buyer’s claim was rejected.
Impact on Humans
It was a painful lesson for the buyer, who lost money and decades in court as a result of his blind faith in a handshake and partial payment.
Because their father’s share was preserved, the co-owner’s heirs saw it as a victory for property rights.
The lesson is obvious for the general public:
👉 The approval of every co-owner is required for joint property—no short cuts. Don’t make any assumptions.
FAQs
- If only one co-owner signs a land sale agreement, can it still be enforced?
No. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision upheld the requirement that all co-owners give their consent, particularly for unpartitioned land.
- In land sales, what is specific performance?
It is a court order that requires a contract to be completed, such as signing a sale deed.
- What is meant by consensus ad idem?
All parties must agree on the same terms, which is known as a “meeting of minds.”
- In property law, what is caveat emptor?
It means “buyer beware”—buyers need to confirm ownership and title prior to signing a contract.
- How long does it take to bring a specific performance lawsuit?
three years following the prearranged sale date or an unambiguous rejection (Article 113, Limitation Act, 1908).
- What makes land sales more difficult when joint ownership is involved?
Because unless the land is divided or all co-owners agree, no owner can sell the entire property.
Disclaimer
This blog is not legal advice; it is merely for public awareness.
