People’s Campus

Paknajol,
Kathmandu
 Case Study
On
Business Law
PRESENTATION BY:

Jeena Shahi
Sudip Basnet
Roja Maharjan
Manisha Maharjan
Rashmita Manandhar
 Description of case
 Case name / subject: Transfer of ownership by written registration

• Plaintiff (Applicant): Amiri Mahara Chamar inhabitant of Rautahat district,

Prempur Gonahi Village Development committee, ward no. 8

• Defendant (opponent): Budhiya Devi Chamarni inhabitant of Rautahat

district, Prempur Gonahi Village Development Committee, Ward no.8

• Judges: Honorable justice Shree Kedar Prasad Giri

Honorable justice Shree Top Bahadur Magar

• Date of Decision: 2062/8/30/05

Description of Disputes

This case is about the agreement between two

parties regarding purchase and sale of land.
Introduction of parties involved:
Amiri Mahara Chamar: The applicant, who
agrees to buy the land.
Sukan Mahara Chamar: The defendant’s
husband, who agrees to sell the land.
Budhiya Devi Chamarni: The defendant, who
refuse to transfer ownership of land after the
death of her husband.
Description:
 There is an agreement between Amiri Chamar and Sukan
Chamar regarding purchase and sale of 0.3.5 land at Rs
19,500 at the rate Rs 6000/kattha (s¶f).
 Amiri Chamar gives the advance of Rs 19000 and the promise is
made to Amiri to legally transfer the ownership of land at the time
of receipt of the residual amount i.e. Rs 500.

 But at that time, health of Sukan Mahara gets worse.

 In this concern, on 1st Baisakh 2028 a written agreement is
made between them in which Sukan Mahara agrees to
transfer the ownership of land in the name of Amiri Chamar
either within the six month of his recovery or within the six
month of transference of ownership of land in the name of
his wife in case of his death.
 Condition of Sukan Chamar gets worse and dies.
 The ownership land is transferred in the name of his wife,
Budhiya Devi in 21st Ashad, 2053.
 As per the contract, he had signed 25 years ago, Amiri
Chamar claims for the land.
 But Budhiya refuses saying that his husband had never
informed her about such contract instead accuses Amiri of
showing a fake agreement paper.
 Hence, Amiri Chamar files a case against Budhiya Devi in
Rautahut District court but it gives decision in the favour of
defendant, Budhiya Devi, saying that since the agreement is
only one sided (signed by only one party), it does not
amount to a valid contract.
 Being unsatisfied with decision given by district court, plaintiff
Amiri Chamar decides to go through appellate court,
Hetauda, for justice.
 After examining the case carefully, opposing the decision
given by Rautahat District court, appellate court gives verdict
in the favour of plaintiff Amiri Chamar in 2055/12/04.
 After her defeat in Appellate Court, the defendant Budhiya
Devi Chamarni takes the case to the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff Issue/ Claim:
 An advance of Rs.19000 has been already given to
defendant’s husband with the agreement of transferring of
land at the time of payment of residual amount i.e. Rs.500.
 But due to deteriorating health condition of defendant’s
husband, a promise was made by him to transfer the
ownership of land within 6 months of his recovery or within
the 6 months from the day of transfer of ownership of land
in his wife’s name (i.e. defendant’s name) incase of his death.
 Since the ownership of land has already been transferred in
the name of defendant, as per the promise made, the
ownership of land must be transferred in his (plaintiff’s)
name against the payment of the residual amount of Rs. 500.
Defendant’s reply
 She is ignorant about the fact that her husband has made an
agreement to sell their land and received amount of Rs.
19000 as advance.
 If any of such agreement had happened, she would have been
informed. So, written evidence presented by plaintiff is fake
and the signature in it is not original
 Hence, she is not obliged to transfer the ownership of land
in the name of plaintiff.
Legal cases / findings
 Since the agreement consists of the essential elements of a
valid contract, it amounts to a contract though signed by only
one party.
 Due to the death of defendant's husband, all the rights and
liabilities regarding the land transfers to the defendant, being
his heir.
 Since plaintiff has filed the case within 6 month from the date
of transference of ownership of land in the name of
defendant, this contract is not said to have exceed due date.
 The contract is related to agreement to sale not a sale deed.
Hence, legal registration is not compulsory.
Decision
After the detail investigation and inspection by expert it was proved
that the signature in agreement paper belonged to defendant's husband and
hence the written agreement paper presented by plaintiff is not fake.

Since,
The agreement between plaintiff and defendant's husband amounts to a valid
contract,
Plaintiff filed the case within the due date
The contract is related to agreement to sale which does not requires legal
registration,
The contractual responsibility of defendant's husband is transferred to
defendant.
Hence, Supreme Court favors the decision (2062/8/30/05) made by Appellate
Court and decides that defendant must transfer the ownership of land in the
name of plaintiff.
Thank You
ANY
QUESTIONS…….

???