The basis of Indian society is a contract. The very foundation of Indian society was based on the theory of society. Thus, contracts are at the origin of the law that deals with business, transactions of the Indian economy and society. The Mothers Act was the Indian Contract Act of 1872, we had derived from the Property Sale Act in 1930. It thus contributes to the improvement, promotion and promotion of commercial transactions in which the seller transfers ownership of the goods to the buyer for compensation or agrees to transfer the goods. In the sale and agreement to sell the condition and guarantee, as defined in section 12 of the law, which also plays an important role. In paragraph 12, paragraph 2, the condition is defined as an essential provision to the main purpose of the treaty. Whereas in section 12, paragraph 3, the guarantee is defined as a guarantee for the main purpose of the contract and a breach of contract may entitle you to damages, but not to the right to refuse the goods and to the final contract. The above definition shows that a purchase agreement contains a promise to transfer the property in question in the future under certain conditions. This agreement itself therefore does not create any rights or interests on the property for the proposed buyer. If the seller does not sell or return the property to the buyer, the buyer is entitled to a special benefit in accordance with the provisions of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. A similar right is available to the seller as part of the agreement to require a certain benefit from the buyer.
In accordance with paragraph 6, paragraph 1, the sale status largely includes existing goods owned by the seller or owned or owned by the seller. While in the sales agreement, the seller indicates that it is influencing a current supply of future products, it depends entirely on the eventuality of the event that may or may not occur. However, section 8 of the aforementioned law deals with the goods that flow before the sale, but under the sale agreement, so that this section again highlights the goods that, through no fault of the seller or buyer, are damaged or corrupted. It is therefore also a sale agreement. In the sale agreement, the parties agree to exchange the goods for a price that depends on compliance with certain conditions at a later date. Although the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999, but did not establish the facts of the case. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance.
On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside. The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument. These conditions include the amount at which it will be sold and the date of future payment.