https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306831 The court held that the first respondent could not be compelled to register the settlement deed without canceling the prior agreement of sale. It agreed with the petitioner that the agreement of sale from 2006 had expired and was unenforceable due to the second respondent's lack of readiness to perform. The court advised the petitioner to file a declaratory suit in the civil court to determine the agreement's unenforceability. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to seek a declaration that the agreement of sale is null and void, allowing registration of the gift deed if successful. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Mar 2023 01:20:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306831 The court held that the first respondent could not be compelled to register the settlement deed without canceling the prior agreement of sale. It agreed with the petitioner that the agreement of sale from 2006 had expired and was unenforceable due to the second respondent's lack of readiness to perform. The court advised the petitioner to file a declaratory suit in the civil court to determine the agreement's unenforceability. The writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to seek a declaration that the agreement of sale is null and void, allowing registration of the gift deed if successful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306831