In addition, it is specified that the sale agreement in favour of the 4th defendant was prior and that, according to the alleged sale agreement of 16.7.1980, the first applicant was executed. As a result, complainants are not entitled to discharge a particular benefit. Under the Transfer of Ownership Act, a sales contract, with or without property, is not transportation. Section 54 of the Transfer of Ownership Act provides that the sale of a property can only be done by a registered instrument and that a sale agreement does not create interest or fees for its property. Although the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999, but did not establish the facts of the case. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value.
The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument. The sale contract may or may not lead to an effective sale of the property in question. Some stamp tax laws, such as the Maharashtra Stamp Act, consider that an agreement to sell a property on the same basis as a proper transport record, as well as a proper transport record, are subject to the same stamp duty as the one in force for the proper sale of a property. Under these provisions, which require the payment of stamp duty on a sales contract, a sale agreement is wrongly considered a good act of sale. Signing a purchase agreement becomes important given several factors. First, it is legal proof that the buyer and seller enter into an agreement on the basis of which the future approach will be decided in the event of a dispute. Also, if you apply for a home loan, the bank would not accept your application until you sign a sales contract.