The section 49 regime provides for a derogation from the above rule, providing that an unregistered document, which relates to the property and which must otherwise be registered either by the registration law or by the TPA, can be obtained as proof of a contract in an appeal for a specified benefit or as evidence of an incidental transaction. The Supreme Court in KB Saha-Sons (P) Ltd/Development Consultant Ltd [(2008) 8 CSC 564] found that a mandatory document, if not registered, can only be considered in a court action for a given benefit as evidence of a contract performed between two parties and that this unregord document cannot be considered as proof of the content of the contract. Therefore, if a document is inadmissible as proof of non-registration, none of its provisions can be admitted as evidence. There are several inclusions or clauses in the sales contract. It will describe the property, contains the contact information of the seller and buyer, the negotiated price will be mentioned and also how this payment will be paid. The payment period is taken into account. There will also be a provision for the payment of stamp duty and on behalf of the title. There are a large number of projects in progress in which the developer may have asked the buyer for more than 10% of the cost of the property under the ATS and may have been donated by him, which were (in the absence of requirement) and are still not registered. Sale deed, if not registered has no validity of its own. However, a sales contract is valid if it is renewed and the payment has been made by the buyer. [Provided that an unregord document required by that Act or the Transfer of Ownership Act of 1882 (4 of 1882) may be obtained as evidence of a contract in a lawsuit for a chapter II defined benefit, if the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of a security transaction that is not to be carried out with the registered deed.” In the absence of such a provision, there is ambiguity as to the validity and application of these unregistered ATSes, which are now legally required to be forcibly registered. Parliament must respond to the aforementioned ambiguity with an appropriate amendment to the law. Alternatively, the national governments concerned could address the issue in the internal regulation.
In the absence of a law, developers are well within their rights to defend themselves if, on the basis of an unregistered ATS, that the content of such an ATS cannot be read for the purposes of evidence, according to Section 49 of the Registration Act. Strictly speaking, Section 49 refers only to the non-registration of documents that are required to be registered mandatorly, either under Section 17 of the Registration Act or TPA. Section 13 of the Act is not explicitly in Section 49. However, it is questionable whether the purpose underlying the forced registration of a document is to impose a consequence of its non-registration and that, in this context, the non-registration provided for in Section 13 of the Act will follow that defined in Section 49 of the Registration Act. that the Allottees cannot avail themselves of such a document (UNregistered ATS) and request its application because of the lack of registration.