Y should file a specific performance suit against x... the agreement though lost cn be proved by way of secondary evidence no problems about that

The sale agreement is void and has no value in the eyes of law. It is totally "y"s mistake to give the consideration amount without signing on the agreement. And "y" cannot prove that he has given money to "x" for the sale as the sale agreement is invalid.

I am surprised how Notary registered the sale agreement without both the parties sign the agreement. "x" is definitely in advantageous position by both receiving the money by "y" and also retaining the property in his name.

Notarised agreement? hearing for the first time. Ofcourse here we have so called Affidavit Sale deed etc etc, but luckily not Notarised agreement and will be glad to hear more on this from the members on this matters.

There is no requirement that the "Agreement to sell" needs to be registered.  So the question of it becoming void does not arise.

The consideration being talked about seems to be an Advance amount what in hindi is being called as "Bayana" and not the whole consideration.

It seems that the Vendor "X" has signed the Agreement to Sell, BUT NOT in the Register of the Notary.  It will not make any difference to the validity of the Document.

On the basis of the said Agreement to Sell, one can file a suit for specific performance.  HOWEVER, the biggest hurdle is that Y has lost the Original Agreement to Sell. 

According to Mr. Harpreet "the agreement though lost cn be proved by way of secondary evidence no problems about that".  One has to take a chance.

MY DEAR RAMCHANDRAN SIR

"Y" HAS NOT SIGNED THE NOTARY REGISTER NOT "X".

"X" HAS SIGNED THE NOTARY REGISTER BUT NOW DEFIES AND DISOWNS THE SUCH AGREEMENT .

IN VIEW OF THIS WHATS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NOTARY PUBLIC ? IF "X" HAS SIGNED THE REGISTER IN PRESENCE OF NOTARY WHO MUST HAVE TAKEN DUE IDENTITY PROOF OR SATISFIES HIMSELF ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF "X" THEN HOW CAN "X" DISOWN THE SAME.?

ANY WAY OUT TO NULLIFY THE INTENSTION OF "X"     ???

Notorised agreement to sell with possession or agreement to sell with delivery of possession on a plain Rs.10/- stamp paper is well entertained in specific performance !!!

Once notorised agreement then upo knowing disposal of land has already been taken place by the owner litigants use back dated stamp paper and fabricate anothe agreement to sell with POA holder.

to mention POA cancelled then registry took place as per due provision of law to creat litigation another antedated agreement with possessiion prepared on 10/- stamp paper and it is entertained ?

This is our system and we are party to it !!

Dear Mr. Amarjeet, 

Since the Vendor "X" has signed the Agreement and also the Notory Register it is favourable to the Buyer "Y".  Buyer not signing the Notary Register is not material.

As already indicated in my earlier reply, my view is quite clear. 

On the basis of the said Agreement to Sell, one can file a suit for specific performance.   According to Mr. Harpreet "the agreement though lost can be proved by way of secondary evidence no problems about that". 

Canotract Act speaks about promisor and promisee and a proposal when accepted  becomes a promise. Here there is no promise and Notary is a stranger to the Contract.

Further, to clinch the issue,Notarization does not: (1) prove the truthfulness of statements contained in the document, (2) legalize or validate the document, or (3) by itself protect a person’s rights to his/her artistic creations or inventions.

Signature on any document is of vital importance in law. Without signature of the parties to the agreement neither party is bound by such agreement as it is uncertain whether they agree/accept the conditions or disagree to do so. All of us are aware about the law on veracity of signature and signature verification law. How can a document although notorised but not signed can be enforced at law?

Dear Mr. Valentine,

my point is can "y" enforce the agreement ??? can the notary register be a secondary peice of evidence to book "x" ?

IN THE ABOVE CASE WHATS THE USE OF SEC17.1(A) OF INDIAN REG ACT 1908 TO BE READ WITH OTHER AMENDMENT ACT. CITATION LATEST SUPREME COURT DECISION KALADEVI VS SOMASUNDARAM

IF WE GO BY THE ABOVE THEN "IS " Y 'S POSITION IS WEAK ????

Mr. Amarjeet:

(1) Section 17 deals with documents which are required to be compulsorily registered.  Accordingly the instrument mentioned in Section 17(1)(a) is compulsorily registerable.

But as already indicated by me in my earlier comments, there is no requirement that the "Agreement to sell" needs to be compulsorily registered.  Refer Section 17(15).  Section 17(15) covers the instruments like Agreement to Sell.

Thus the question of  the "Agreement to Sell" becoming  void just because it had not been registered simply does not arise.

On the basis of the said Agreement to Sell, one can file a suit for specific performance.  HOWEVER, the biggest hurdle seems to be that  Y has lost the Original Agreement to Sell. 

According to Mr. Harpreet "the agreement though lost cn be proved by way of secondary evidence no problems about that".  One has to take a chance.

[I fully appreciate your position.  You would like to see that "Y" cannot succeed just because the document has not been registered.  But the legal position is completely different.  If Y could some how produce the document [which currently he says that he has lost it] containing "X"'s signature, then "Y" would be in a position to enforce the specific relief.

my dear ramchandran sir

COULD U PLS ENLIGHTEN ME

SUPPOSE IF "Y" GOT THE LOST AGREEMENT AND WANT TO FILE A SUIT UNDER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, BUT WHAT IS THE USE THE ABOVE SO CALLED AGREEMENT TO SELL !!! WILL IT BE EXCLUSIVELY USE FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSE OR THA SAID PROPERTY WHICH THE TRUE OWNERS HAVE ALREADY SOLD OUT WILL BE CANCELLED AND "X" THE POA HOLDER(POWER SINCE BEEN CANCELLED BEFORE TRUE OWNERS SOLD TO "A" AND "Y" GOT THE NOTORISED AGREEMENT)

IN THE ABOVE SCENARIO WHATS THE REPURCATION ????

Dear Mr. Amarjeet,

If "Y" traces the original Agreement to Sell, then on that basis he would be in a position to file a suit for Specific performance.

The cancellation of Power of Attorney after the signing of the Agreement to Sell will be of no effect.  Similarly, the belated tracing by "Y" of the Original Agreement to Sell will not in any way be a ground for selling the property to "A" when the said property was to the knowledge of the owners already the subject matter of the Agreement to Sell.

In case of any subsequent sale to any third party, contrary to the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell,  the Court will decide - either directing "X" to specific performance or by awarding suitable damages and compensation against "X" and in favour of  "Y".  Needless to say, all these will depend upon the pleadings and arguments during the course of the case.