Warning: getimagesize(3076): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/vhosts/martijnstadhouders.com/httpdocs/wp-content/themes/travis/header-grid.php on line 60
Registration Charges For Agreement To Sell

There is no savings/deeming system under the law that takes into account the fate of unregistered ATS exported before May 1, 2017. In deciding the fate of these ATs, the law could have been considered to have been registered under the Act before May 1, 2017 (subject to payment of a fee to the relevant sub-registry), provided that even the ATS that were executed before May 1, 2017 are registered within a specified time frame, as provided for the registration of current projects in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. It indicates the full and complete transfer of all rights to the property and retains no rights to the transferred property. The sales concept is implemented using instruments called “Agreement to Sell and Sales Deed.” In addition, there are other types of transfer of ownership by gift deed, wills, etc., but these transactions involve no consideration, which is the main ingredient for the sale and sale of deed. 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. The section 49 regime provides for a derogation from the above rule, providing that an unregistered document, which relates to the property and which must otherwise be registered either by the registration law or by the TPA, can be obtained as proof of a contract in an appeal for a specified benefit or as evidence of an incidental transaction. The Supreme Court in KB Saha-Sons (P) Ltd/Development Consultant Ltd [(2008) 8 CSC 564] found that a mandatory document, if not registered, can only be considered in a court action for a given benefit as evidence of a contract performed between two parties and that this unregord document cannot be considered as proof of the content of the contract. Therefore, if a document is inadmissible as proof of non-registration, none of its provisions can be admitted as evidence. In the absence of contrary legislation, an ATS has not been registered in accordance with industry practice with respect to real estate exported both between individuals and between developers and Allottees. As the law did not provide for registration, ATS was also not exposed to the consequences of section 49 of the Registration Act.

Therefore, the courts and especially consumers for has, used to make these unregistered ATS effective. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the importance of the contract of sale between the owner and the purchaser, since it recently decided that the period of awarding a dwelling unit to a home buyer should be taken into account from the date of the construction-buyer agreement and not from the date of registration of the project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.