This absolute rule is subject to the exception of Section 53A of the Transfer of Ownership Act. Section 53A provides that the seller has no right to disturb the purchaser`s possession if the purchaser has entered into possession of the property that is the subject of the transfer, while fully acquiring its portion of the contractual obligation. It should be noted that Section 53A provides the proposed purchaser with a shield against the seller and prevents the seller from disrupting the purchaser`s property, but it does not cured the buyer`s property. The property`s ownership remains in the hands of the seller. 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. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the importance of the contract of sale between the owner and the purchaser, since it recently decided that the period of awarding a dwelling unit to a home buyer should be taken into account from the date of the owner-buyer agreement and not from the date of registration of the project under the Real Estate Act (regulation and development). , 2016. The court also ordered the rera authorities to order the payment of compensation by the contractor, in accordance with the sales contract whose unsealability was upheld by this decision. In cases where you have acquired and taken possession of a property under a sale agreement, the title to the land will still remain with the developer, unless a sales record has been subsequently executed and registered under the Indian Registration Act.
Thus, it is clear that a security in a property can only be transferred by a deed of sale. In the absence of a deed of sale duly stamped and registered, no right, property or interest for a property, the buyer of the property.