What If Agreement Is Not Registered
If the seller does not sell or return the property to the buyer, the buyer is entitled to a special benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. A similar right is available to the seller as part of the agreement to require a certain benefit from the buyer. … paragraph 8, as observed in paragraph 8: – 8. I think the complainant may have some substance in his memoirs, which must be confirmed by the sales agreement, but those arguments are rightly… The sales contract was certified notarized and, in accordance with the registration law, this agreement had to be registered. He also noted that the amount receivable… which could not be considered cash loans simply because the buyer did not cooperate with the notator. The auditor filed a copy of the sale agreement, the value of the transaction being…
The verdict read: “If all sales contracts are forcibly registered, this will lead to a long way to discourage the production and circulation of dirty money in real estate and to undervalue documents for stamp duty purposes. It will also discourage the growth of the country mafias and muscular men who dominate the real estate scene in different parts of the country. [Provided that an unregord document required by that Act or the Transfer of Ownership Act of 1882 (4 of 1882) may be obtained as evidence of a contract in a court action for a defined benefit under Chapter II, if the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of a security transaction that is not to be carried out with the registered deed.” In the absence of such a provision, there is ambiguity as to the validity and application of these unregistered ATSes, which are now legally required to be forcibly registered. Parliament must respond to the aforementioned ambiguity with an appropriate amendment to the law. Alternatively, the national governments concerned could address the issue in the internal regulation. In the absence of a law, developers are well within their rights to defend themselves if, on the basis of an unregistered ATS, that the content of such an ATS cannot be read for the purposes of evidence, according to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Strictly speaking, Section 49 refers only to the non-registration of documents that are required to be registered mandatorly, either under Section 17 of the Registration Act or TPA. Section 13 of the Act is not explicitly in Section 49. However, it is doubtful that the purpose behind the forced registration of a document is to impose a consequence for its non-registration, and that, in this context, the consequence of non-registration under section 13 of the Act are those of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Therefore, developers, when faced with an infringement by the Allottees, can rule that Allottees cannot rely on such a document (UNregistered ATS) and request the application of the article because of the lack of registration. In the absence of a provision of the law, it may be difficult to rebut such a legal defence.
There is no savings/deeming system under the law that takes into account the fate of unregistered ATS exported before May 1, 2017. In deciding the fate of these TAs, the law could have been considered to be: that the ATS be registered under the law before May 1, 2017 (subject to the payment of a tax from the negotiator concerned) or provided that even the ATS that were executed before May 1, 2017 are registered within a specified period, it goes without saying that these procedures increase and delay these procedures in the event of litigation and additional technical costs, so it is always advisable to enter into agreements on stamp paper by paying the required obligation.