Specific Performance Unregistered Agreement Sale

Posted by | No Tags | Uncategorized | No Comments on Specific Performance Unregistered Agreement Sale

. B.S Patil, J.: – The plaintiff filed a complaint for a specified benefit, based on an unreg registered sales agreement, which would have been executed by the 1st defendant 1 in this case. Application for an injunction. The Court of Annulment rejected the application on the grounds that an unregistsed agreement on the sale, which records of the delivery of the property of immovable property, none. It was not possible to examine an unreg registered sales agreement due to the lack of other materials, and the claimant had not raised any issues.4. I do not find any illegality in the order. . the judgment in the case of Gurbachan Singh (above) was set aside, which reads as follows: `(a) an action for a specified performance on an unreg registered contract/contract relating to the sale of . Contract, insofar as, even if it is not registered, it may form the basis of a remedy for a given service and be proved as proof of the agreement or partial performance of a contract.

The applicant`s appeal was dismissed and the appeal was lodged. The applicant respondent brought an action for a declaration and a specific benefit by leaving. [Provided that an unregistered document on fixed property required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) may be obtained as evidence of a contract for a specified performance under Chapter II, if the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of a guarantee transaction, which must not be carried out by a registered instrument”. A number of documents, including a general power of attorney, a sales agreement, a receipt and a will, were executed between Mr. Rishi Raj and the applicant on 06.08.2013 concerning the ownership of the appeal. The documents in question were signed by Mr. Rishi Raj and the complainant and two witnesses. The execution of these documents is not contested by either party. The Trial Court denied a particular benefit, referring to the Supreme Court`s judgment of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd.

vs State of Haryana & Anr, due to a lack of registration. The case in the application was that, despite the execution of the agreement of 06.08.2013, Defendant No. 4, who was the property of Mr Rishi Raj as a janitor, did not hand over the defendant to the applicant. This resulted in the filing of the present action. The Apex Court considered whether a contract of sale not registered for secondary purposes could be consulted subject to section 49 of the Registration Act 1908. Two documents he invokes in his statement today are surrogacy and do not create a right. In order to effectively resolve the case between all parities, Mr. Kamlesh Chandra is ordered to evacuate the property and deposit the keys to the property in court at the next trial. . .

.


No Comments

Comments are closed.