In accordance with the Indian Registration Act of 1908, any agreement relating to the transfer of shares in immovable property with a value of more than one hundred rupees must be registered. Therefore, if you have purchased real estate as part of a purchase agreement without a correct deed of sale following, you will not get any right or interest in the property that would be transferred as part of the purchase agreement. The act is based on the principles set out in GLS against Goodman Group Pty Ltd  VSC 627, and these principles have yet to be explicitly applied by a New South Wales court having jurisdiction to rule on such a matter. In Amirbeaggi and 2 others -v- Business in Focus (Australia), Pty Limited  NSWSC 421 Brereton J has however commented on such agreements and, with the agreement of hodgson JA`s judgment in Koutsourais v Metledge & Associates  NSWCA 313: Acontract for deed offers you an opportunity: Doing business with a buyer who cannot qualify for a regular mortgage. The process is usually faster than a normal mortgage sale. If the buyer is late, you can immediately terminate the contract without having to follow all the necessary legal procedures to close a house to a mortgage holder. Other advantages include: no need for valuation, a wider range of buyers, a possible gain on financing and faster settlement. The main disadvantage of a contract for a seller is that the property is not in your name for many years. This may not fit your investment strategy.
You`ll also wait until the contract is completed to get all of your money, instead of getting immediate payment of the full purchase price from a traditional mortgage company. Other risks are as follows: the loan remains on your credit information, the seller is always responsible for the loan, the risk of non-payment by the buyer, and the buyer never follows a formal application process as for a regular mortgage. In addition, the seller is always the owner of the right and if the buyer does not comply with the requirements of the code and regulation, the seller may be exposed due to these fines, actions and other legal problems. This absolute rule is subject to the exception provided for in Section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act. Section 53A provides that the seller has no right to disturb the ownership thus granted to the buyer, which is the subject of the transfer, while fully aerating to its part of the obligation of the contract. It should be noted that Article 53A offers the proposed buyer protection against the contemptuous and pours out the contemptuous of the buyer`s troublesome property, but it does not heal the buyer`s ownership of the property. Ownership of the property remains in the hands of the seller.  I believe that among the factors that would tend to have the proceedings ultimately based, at least in part, on a lawyer`s right to pay, with the exception of a cost recovery proceeding, this would be a compromise between previous court proceedings; a compromise that includes other issues and costs; a compromise that accepts a much lower amount in terms of costs; and the client`s legal advice at the time of the compromise. I believe that each of these factors would tend to change the character of a procedure based on the compromise of a cost recovery procedure. None of these factors were present in this case. The terms of an act contract are flexible depending on what each party can choose between them.
The duration of the contract and the amount of monthly payments are the responsibility of the buyer and seller. . . . .