Unregistered Sale Agreement Validity In Tamilnadu

The question to be answered is whether an unregient purchase agreement, acquired by delivery of the property or performed for the benefit of a person in possession, i.e. an agreement which has a partial performance, a sales agreement within the meaning of Article 53A of the TPA, can be obtained as evidence of the agreement and whether legal action in favour of a given service on the basis of such a non-agreement registered is for sale. The purpose of Article 53A of the TPA gives the defendant the right to protect his property against contempt. It is also available to persons who assert rights under it, such as heirs, beneficiaries of the assignment and legal representatives[5]. This section should normally be used as a defense and not as an assault weapon. A sales contract is a legal document that represents the conditions under which the sale of the property is made from the seller to the buyer. It also contains details of the consideration for which the property is sold. The agreement completes all the essential conditions and a schedule for future payments that the buyer must make to the property. It is the most important document because it facilitates the entire flow and process of selling and transferring real estate. It is concluded that, on the basis of the above-mentioned hon`ble Courts judgments, the unregistered sales agreement has been legitimised, given that it is situated in a legal action for a given performance and could be admissible as evidence subject to section 49 of the Registration Act. The unreg registered sales contract may form the basis for the legal recourse of a given service and may be invoked as proof of the agreement or partial performance of a contract.

Section 53A is generally used for defence and not as a weapon where a defendant has the right to protect his or her right of ownership against the assignor or against his or her heir or assignee or legal representative. Under article 53A, the assignee has the right to object to any attempt by the assignor to disrupt the rightful holding of the assignee of the contract of sale, and his position as an applicant or defendant should make no difference. The buyer can only use the shield as a defendant, and not as a plaintiff, would himself undo the spirit of Article 53A, because it will be possible for an overpowerful contemptuous to expropriate by force the buyer, even against contractual concessions, and force him to be tried as a plaintiff[2]. . .