Consenting to an arrangement available to be purchased is very significant considering a few elements. In the first place, this is a lawful verification of the purchaser and seller going into an understanding. The future strategy would be chosen if there should be any conflict. Additionally, on the off chance that you are applying for a home loan, the bank would not acknowledge your application till you consent to an arrangement available to be bought.
To learn more about the topic, read the blog till the end, and if there lies any more doubt, feel free to reach out to us at; https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
What is an Agreement for Sale?
An agreement for sale is a land sale agreement that shows the willingness of both parties to buy or sell the property under specific stipulations and conditions.
An agreement for sale includes the following elements, they are:
- Proposal to purchase and an agreement to sell in the future.
- Description of the property.
- A notice stating the property is free from any legal encumbrances.
- Value of the property.
- Payment details.
- Original documents submitted on the final payment.
- Description of the method of property delivery.
- Carrying out of the sale deed.
- Sale deed registration.
- Payment refund in case of any conflict.
- A remedy for any legal issues that may occur.
- The transfer of tax-related certificates.
For example, in some states in India, like Uttar Pradesh, the draft sale agreement is not considered legally binding until it is registered with the sub-registrar’s office.
What is a Sale Deed?
Unlike the agreement for sale that only shows willingness for future decisions, a sale deed is drafted on an actual day that the property is sold or transferred. Once the sale deed of the flat is executed, the owner gets complete ownership of the property in question. The sale deed is registered at the registrar’s office under the Registration Act of 1908.
A buyer-seller agreement includes the following elements, they are:
- Information about both the parties involved.
- Property description
- Title transfer.
- The terms and conditions pertaining to the sale consideration.
- References pertaining to the agreement of sale.
- Details in regard to price and payment.
- Transfer of rights claim of the property and interest the new buyer.
It is important to mention a clause stating that the previous owner does not hold any authority on the facility, privileges, and overall ownership.
Difference between Specific Performance and an Injunction
The remedies of specific performance and injunction are similar, but the key difference is that while an order for specific performance orders a party to do something, an injunction orders a party not to do something. In other words, specific performance is a positive remedy whereas, an injunction is a negative remedy.
Specific performance of a contract means enforcement of exact terms of a contract. Under it the plaintiff claims for the specific thing of which he is entitled as per the terms of contract. Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, whereby a court issues an order requiring a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. Specific performance is commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property.
Temporary injunction
Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific time, or until the further order of the court, and they maybe granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Permanent injunction
A permanent or perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act. which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.
When can the Court grant perpetual or permanent injunction
A perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.
Further, when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-
• where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
• where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion:
• where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
• where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
What is mandatory injunction and when is it granted?
When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.
Supreme Court on Unregistered Sale Agreement
The Apex Court in a recent decision in Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi1 observed that a relief for permanent injunction on the basis of an unregistered document or agreement to sell, could not be granted. The Apex Court further observed that a relief cannot be got indirectly which otherwise could not have been got in a suit for substantive relief.
FACTS:
One Kelo Devi, the Respondent, had instituted a Suit for permanent injunction, before the Trial Court, to restrain the Appellant (the Defendant therein) from disturbing the Respondent’s possession in the suit property (“said Suit”). The Respondent relied on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23rd March, 1996 (“said Agreement”) in the said Suit. The Appellant had in turn filed a counter claim, seeking a decree for possession in the suit property before the Trial Court. The Trial Court refused to grant the Respondent permanent injunction in respect of the suit property and dismissed the said Suit and allowed the counter claim filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Respondent could not prove the said Agreement. The Trial Court further held that the Respondent was in unauthorized possession of the suit property. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Trial Court, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court and consequently decreed the said Suit against the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Allahabad High Court, however, the Allahabad High Court confirmed the order of the First Appellate Court (“Impugned Order”). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Impugned Order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Apex Court.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
Themain issue for consideration before the Apex Court was as follows: Whether a permanent injunction could be granted on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell?
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent had filed the said Suit on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. It was further submitted that an unregistered agreement to sell was inadmissible in evidence.
It was further submitted that said Suit was filed only for permanent injunction and that the Respondent, by adopting clever drafting, did not seek any relief for specific performance of the said Agreement. It was also submitted that as the Respondent could not get substantive relief for specific performance of the said Agreement, the Respondent was not entitled to a decree for permanent injunction on the basis of the said Agreement.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that an unregistered document could be used for collateral purposes. It was further submitted that the First Appellate Court and the High Court had rightly granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from interfering with the possession of the Respondent.
Judgement:
The Apex Court observed that the Respondent had merely instituted the said Suit for permanent injunction based upon an unregistered agreement. The Apex Court was of the view that such an unregistered document could not be admissible in evidence. The Apex Court observed that the Respondent could not get relief indirectly which otherwise could not be got by the Respondent in a suit for substantive relief, which in the present case would have been for specific performance. The Apex Court held that the Respondent could not even obtain a relief for permanent injunction on the basis of an unregistered document, more particularly when the Appellant had filed a counter claim for obtaining possession of the suit property, which was allowed by the Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, the Apex Court allowed the appeal by quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order and restoring the order of the Trial Court.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the appellate court’s decision in the case of Balram Singh vs. Kelo Devi underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements, particularly regarding the admissibility of evidence in property disputes. The court emphasized that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot serve as the basis for obtaining a permanent injunction, especially when the plaintiff cleverly avoids seeking specific performance due to the agreement’s unenforceable nature. This ruling reaffirms the principle that legal actions must be pursued transparently and in accordance with established legal standards. Ultimately, the court’s decision highlights the need for parties to property transactions to ensure compliance with legal formalities to avoid legal challenges in the future.
To understand more such complex law in simple ways, stay connected with www.thelegalshots.com .
If doubts still persist, contact our Legal Experts at https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
