Unregistered Agreement Judgment

makarand
Wordpre developer 14th April, 2021

Section 17 (1A)[1] of the Registration Act, 1908 provides that “documents containing contracts that transfer contracts for a fee, any real estate within the meaning of Section 53A of Property Law, 1882, are registered if they were executed on or after the start of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and that such documents are not recorded on or after that date. , they have no effect for the purposes of Section 53A.” This section of the Registration Act expressly states that if the sales contract is not registered, it has no effect within the meaning of Section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act of 1882. This means that an unreged sales agreement cannot be admissible as evidence. Section 53A of the TPA deals with partial benefit where a contract to transfer property between the assignor and the assignor and the assignor, who is or is already in possession of the property or part of the contract, is in possession of the partial performance of the contract and the purchaser`s action has made or is ready for part of the contract to execute its share of the contract. , the purchaser opposes the purchaser. The main purpose or intent of this section is to prevent the ceding party from taking advantages due to the non-registration of the document. It is concluded that, on the basis of the above Hon`ble Courts, the unregord sale agreement was legitimized, since it could be admissible in a lawsuit for a defined benefit and be admissible in the evidence relating to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The non-registered sale agreement can form the basis of the legal action of a defined benefit and serve as evidence of the contractual agreement or partial performance of a contract. Section 53A should normally be used as a defence and not as a weapon when a defendant has the right to protect his property from the bearer or from his heir or his legal representative. In defending the Bombay High Court decision, Coastal Marine argued that the VERDICT of SMS Tea Estates was no longer the law because of the inclusion of Section 11 (6-A) in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Law) in 2015. Section 11 (6-A) had narrowed the scope of the review in determining the existence of an arbitral decision when forming an arbitral tribunal. In overturning the High Court`s decision, the bank found that the High Court had ignored the above points, while it felt that the unregulated document could not be considered for guarantees. …

However, in accordance with Section 17, paragraph 1, point a), of the Registration Act of 1908, this allegation is unrescribed, since an unregistered sales agreement … Arguing that an unregant agreement for sale may not be a basis for legal action for certain services, but with the utmost respect and humility towards the judge alone scholarly, I can not… as the basis for a legal action to obtain a certain benefit.