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. By analyzing the provision, we can understand that the document listed in it is an agreement for sale.
Moreover, the fact that the agreement on the sale as such falls within the category of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Registration Act as a non-binding document. … Strength of the agreement for sale (Banakhat), which is not even registered. Just for sale on the strength of the agreement, and this also an unregured, small … the sale agreement (banakhat) on the force of which the petitioner has not been the subject of recourse and this agreement for sale is not registered. The petitioner v… it is also indisputable that even after the sale agreement, none of the necessary authorizations has been made available/granted so far.4.10 As noted above, the agreement … 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. … Section 53A of the Property Transfer Act w.e.f. f 24.9.2001, according to which a sale agreement has no rights to the … The general power is carried out in favour of a third person and in whose name the sale agreement is not executed, and this to allow the third person to do so … The courts below do not have complete illegality and gross perversity in relying on the general power of attorney registered ex. DW3/1 to the extent that such a general power does not… Applying the provisions of Section 88 of the RERA Act 2016, we can verify, in the analysis of the provisions of both provisions, that section 17, paragraph 2(v) of the Registration Act 1908 denies the RERA Act 2016. Therefore, under section 89 of the RERA Act 2016, the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 will not be taken into account for the purposes of registering the sale agreement. … sell. The first court of appeal therefore decided that even if the agreement is to be taken as a sale agreement, but, since the sale agreement is not in a…
Property since 2005, and therefore the appeal must be rejected because the security agreement of 2.3.2014 is not a security agreement, but an agreement to sell…. The applicant/defendant should be able to demonstrate that the agreement in question is not a security agreement unless the contract is concluded.