… Relief of the special benefit on the basis of the unregulated agreement for sale and also prays for the cancellation of the registered deed of sale executed by the original owner for the benefit of third parties. Both appeals should be tried at the same time. It has also been argued that the parties are almost equal, the quality of prosecution is the same and in both actions is the same unreg registered agreement for the sale a problem… The applicants are original defendants and claim to be aggrieved by the granting of a provisional action by the court formed in Special Action 134 of 2013. In the aforementioned appeal, the applicant claims… “In this case, the applicant did not seek appeal on the basis of the partial benefit under section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act and, therefore, Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act, which was intended only for the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act, was not attracted, so the agreement did not require registration. Such an agreement is covered by the disaster of Section 17 (2) (v) of the Registration Act and does not create, declare, resign, limit or fall any rights, property or interest in the property. On the contrary, as in Sukhwinder Kaur (supra), it creates a right to obtain another document which, if executed, will create the right, title or interest in the property, will be declared, surrendered, limited or cancelled.
Not only that, but the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act make the position clearer. It provides that an unregord document that affects real estate and must be registered under that Act and the Transfer of Ownership Act may be obtained as proof of a contract in a lawsuit for a defined benefit under Chapter II of the specific Relief Act of 1877. As noted in Sukhwinder Kaur (supra), a common interpretation of section 17(2)v) and provision 49 of the Act leaves no doubt that the agreement to sell property does not create any rights or title to the property. It is the sale deposit that, if executed, will create such a right in the property. Therefore, a sale agreement is not required to be registered, and the same applies to a lawsuit for a defined benefit under Chapter II of the 1877 Specific Discharging Act in charge of proof. “16. In light of this court`s submissions, the discharge of the special benefit, declaration, detention and permanent injunction against all defendants is denied on all these matters, but the applicant is entitled to another discharge of the recovery of the aid.