Even if the signing of the sales contract does not mean that the sale is over, it is a decisive step in this direction. For this reason, buyers need to know precisely the conditions set out in the agreement. . Actions for the opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant, but nothing of the kind has been done and therefore cannot be said to be that the contract of sale is exer. The sales contract was recorded by the court of justice by a statement that the plaintiff had. 264 of 2004 for an instruction to the complainant to execute the agreement for the purchase of the land in question in accordance with the contract of sale of 04.08.2003 concluded between 08.08.2003. . (iv) Following the preparation of a report by the Treasury, it was established that the accused were in possession. Since the applicants had not contested the contract of sale of 23.10.1969. any case of first emergency; (b) they had not approached the court with clean hands; (c) the delay in calling into question the validity of the aforementioned sales contract. To exhibit.
The questions raised in the action for examination are those which I would have noticed here, namely, inter alia, the validity of the contract of sale and/or the grant of ownership in favour of the contract. . installed in the disputed property. I have heard advice from the parties and I have studied the minutes. The validity of the sales contract of 14.3.2011 seems to be conditional. was fraudulently made by the petitioner. The petitioner`s experienced lawyer argues that the plaintiffs do indeed have a contract of sale registered in. Case of the civil party, since the plaintiff has already filed an appeal for the concrete execution of the sales contract of 14.3.2011. It will be premature at that time, for one. “A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that provides for the sale of that property under the terms agreed between the parties” – section 54, section 54, states: “It does not in itself create interest or calculate the property properly.” 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 the contemptuous of the buyer`s troublesome assets, but it does not heal the buyer`s ownership of the property.
. . .