David Pisarra

Supreme Court Ruling On Sale Deed And Agreement For Sale

Home  >>  Supreme Court Ruling On Sale Deed And Agreement For Sale

Supreme Court Ruling On Sale Deed And Agreement For Sale

On December 17, 2020, Posted by , With No Comments

It is trite to refer to the case of Baijnath Singh against Paltu and others, (1908) ILR 30, Page 125 of Allahabad, where the Allahabad High Court noted that if the deposit of the sale was recited as the consideration was paid, but it is found by the court that there was no consideration of sale, the non-payment of the purchase money does not transfer the property to the property purchased by the seller and buyer , despite such non-payment, may hold legal action for possession of the property. “The payment of the price is not necessarily a prerequisite for the closing of the sale. If the property intends to postpone the registration, the sale is concluded as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price has been paid or not, and the buyer is allowed to sue for property when he has not paid the price. This is reflected in the words of the section “Price paid or promised or partially paid or partially paid.” But although the deed recited that the price was not paid, and it was in fact not paid and possession was not delivered, it was found that the conclusion was irresistible that no title existed. A condition that the price must be paid in one year, provided possession has been granted within that time, does not invalidate the deed of sale. If the price is not paid, the seller cannot return the transport to that account. He can only complain about the price; and he will have a field fee for unpaid purchase money. This is a non-obsessive tax, as explained in the section 55 note, paragraph 4, point b), and does not justify the seller refusing to hold it.” It would be trite to refer to the case of Bishundeo Narain Rai vs. Anmol Devi – Ors. 1998 (7) CSC 498, where the Apex Court had the opportunity to consider when the ownership and title of a property will be transferred to the purchaser as part of an act of promotion.

The Apex Court stated that “any contract of sale that is not a registered promotion (nature of sale) would fall short of the provisions of Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Ownership Act and would not confer ownership or transfer any right to broadcast a property (except the limited right conferred by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act).” The above definition shows that a purchase agreement contains a promise to transfer the property in question in the future under certain conditions. This agreement itself therefore does not create any rights or interests on the property for the proposed buyer. Some important court decisions are worth mentioning in this area. Kashidas v. Chaithuru, (1914) 19 Cal LJ 289 and Ghosh v. Rohini (1908) 13 Cal WN 692 held more than a century ago in the case of a sale, if the intention of the parties is that the property would be passed on to The registration, the sale is concluded as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price was paid or not. The same view was adopted in the case of Raj Nath Singh v.

Comments are closed.