A disgruntled buyer unhappy with court’s verdict

A disgruntled buyer unhappy with court’s verdict

A house buyer says he lost around Nu 9mn

Last month, the Thimphu Dzongkhag Court issued a verdict stating that the property (a duplex building at Motithang) has to be given to the owner, Jigme Cholen Yezer, and that both the parties (the buyer and seller) has to repay the loan individually for using the building as mortgage.

However, 49-years-old Gyurme Sangay Wangdi, the buyer, is dissatisfied with the verdict.  

He said that they have dealt with everything legally and all the legal documents are executed by the defendant himself and it was not at all acknowledged by the trial court (commercial bench) on his appeal. 

Regardless of having the legal documents, Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said that he also submitted detailed evidence and their background, comprising almost 100 pages to the trial court (commercial bench). “However, they have not even considered one.” 

According to the verdict, the sale deed was made on January 5, 2019 between Jigme Cholen Yezer and Gyurme Sangay Wangdi.  The seller, upon consultation with his spouse and who with full conscience, agreed to sell the land measuring 6,534sq.ft along with the duplex building owned by the seller at Motithang.  

The buyer, Gyurme Sangay Dorji, agreed to buy the properties and they agreed at a total cost of Nu 25mn with some conditions. 

The sale deeds states that a total amount of Nu 9.1mn only inclusive of housing loan, overdue interest accountable with the Bhutan National Bank, against the property was taken over by the buyer in effect of this sale deed. 

“It was mutually agreed that a total of Nu 4mn only was accounted as payment to the seller in lieu of the buyer’s 2 units of Toyota Prado at Nu 4mn,” stated the sale deeds. In addition, the buyer paid Nu 11.9mn on the day of signing the agreement that altogether adds up to the total cost of the property and Nu 25mn completing the full property. 

Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said that all witnesses involved during the transactions were also summoned before the court and upon scrutiny both the witnesses have given their statement (verbally as well as in written statement). However, he added that this was also not included in the judgment.  

“One of the witnesses went to submit his statement; the court officials tried to influence him to amend his written statement and told to specify the amount seen as Nu 3 to 4mn in physical cash while making the final transaction between the parties,” Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said.  

On the defendant’s property (Motithang duplex), they have availed an additional loan of Nu 0.7mn by mortgaging extra collateral (land at Kanglung, measuring a total area of 4 acres) registered in the name of his brother in-law, Tshewang Dorji).  

“While I was updating the loan of the duplex, I also liquidated the loan (Nu 0.7mn) against the Kanglung land altogether and the owner, straight away sold his 4 acres land to me at a sum of Nu 5mn,” Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said. 

He added that having all the legal documents and records of monetary transactions with the owner, the trial court has linked the case with my defendant and passed the verdict.  

According to the judgment, the defendant either has to reimburse the money, that is the loan payment (Nu 0.7mn) made by Gyurme Sangay Wangdi, or he will be compensated with only certain portions of the land that is equivalent to Nu 0.7mn.  

“I am again slapped here for not accounting my remaining amount (Nu 4.3mn) paid to Tshewang Dorji. To my dismay, the judgment has been passed without even summoning us for the preliminary hearing,” he said.

Further, Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said that the defendant in one of his petitions already confessed before the court that all the written documents are legit and were written by him.  

“The voice recording is the evidence. However, the judgment was in his favor by considering the voice recording as lone evidence,” he said. “In fact, be it the final evidence, I am very confident that the favor is more on my side if the content of the conversations in the recordings is assessed extensively.”  

“Besides all conversations, one particular conversation clearly says that ‘since he won’t be able to regularize bank loans he has disposed his property to me and also mentioned that he will make an advance payment of Nu 3 to 5mn to repurchase his property by the end of June, 2019, if given the time extension,” Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said.

He added that he also submitted the recordings of the WeChat conversations for detailed investigation and assessments. “But the judgment stated that the mortgage has been given to him, but the loan has been divided. The judgment is not satisfactory, he said.  

“Having agreed on all the terms and conditions, in the presence of respective witnesses we have affixed our signature. The seller undertakes to vacate the property and housing unit within three months from the date of signing this agreement,” Gyurme Sangay Wangdi said.

Kinley Yonten from Thimphu