Sale agreement and transfer of possession

If the second agreement recites that the previous agreement on the issue supersedes it, the same can be held as valid.

There is absolutely no mention of the first agreement. I want to know if the second agreement can be viewed as a continuation of the first. Because in the first agreement it has been stated that possession will be handed only after the execution of the sale deed but in the second agreement possession has been handed to them. So now can we take both the agreements together to show that possession had been handed to them before the execution of the sale deed.

contact an expert lawyer dealing with propety laws in your locality with all the papers and proceed as per his advise because without seeing the papers no proper opinion can be rendered.

Dear John, 

i feel the second agreement will not have any adverse effect if the same is made in favour of the same purchaser. When you execute the original sale deed, you can have the references of the previous agreements in it. Further, please also ensure that sufficient stamp duty is also paid as sale agreement with possession of the immovable property attracts higher stamp duty in Karnataka. Lastly, as learned Sri Kalaiselvam sir has suggested, you may refer the matter to an expert civil lawyer in your area for further opinion.

with regards

Yadu Raghunathan

If all the facts of the first agreement have been mentioned in the second agreement, then there is no necessity to produce both agreements, otherwise both agreements have to be produced before the court. Anyway the correct position of the case may be said after seeing the agreements only.

The sale is for a total consideration of 2.35 crores. A stamp duty of 20,000rs has been paid for the sale agreement. The possession agreement is written on a 100rs stamp paper. So now that possession has been handed over can we now say that the first sale agreement is understamped since a sale agreement with possession attracts the same stamp duty as that of a sale deed.

" In a given case there may not be a recital as to possession in the document but by another document the possession may have been delivered. In that situation, necessarily it has to be treated that it falls within the scope of Article 47-A. But, if the document executed is to be seen strictly, requisite stamp duty need not be paid treating it as a sale. "

       Given above is an extract from Andra high court ruling which I had got from indian kanoon. Link to the document is https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1017739/ But what does the extract mean in simple layman terms.