LAW FOR ALL

the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)= According to the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act, the agreement, if any, executed between the plaintiffs on one hand and the developer on the another, ought to have been registered with the sub-Registrar. 24. In absence of such a registered document, the plaintiffs would not get any right in respect of the flats, which they intended to purchase. Moreover, in absence of the registration, the Subsequent Buyers could not have got an opportunity to inspect the agreement and there could not be any presumption that the Subsequent Buyers knew about the agreement.; The letter of intent=The letter of intent cannot be said to be an agreement to sell for the simple reason that according to the contents of the letter of intent, only upon payment of the entire purchase price, the Developer and the plaintiffs were to enter into an agreement with regard to sale of the flats. This fact clearly denotes that no agreement to sell had been entered into between the plaintiffs and the Developer and in absence of such agreements, in our opinion, there cannot be any right in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to specific performance of any contract. Thus, in our opinion, the High Court did not commit any error while coming to the conclusion that there was no binding contract or agreement in existence between the plaintiffs and the Developer and therefore, the trial court could not have decreed the suit for specific performance.; subsequent buyers - whether bonafide or not = As no averment was made by the plaintiffs in their plaints that the Subsequent Buyers were not bonafide purchasers for consideration, the Subsequent Buyers could not have adduced any evidence to show that they were bonafide purchasers for consideration. Had such a plea been raised by the plaintiffs in their pleadings, the Subsequent Buyers could have adduced necessary evidence to prove their cases. In such cases, normally the burden of proof would lie on the plaintiffs unless there is a registered document so as to raise a presumption that the Subsequent Buyers had knowledge with regard to the earlier transaction. Such a burden of proof was not discharged by the plaintiffs and therefore, we are also of the view that the Subsequent Buyers were bonafide buyers for consideration.; amount refunded with interest = In view of the above circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court was right in allowing the appeals and directing the Developer to return the amount of the purchase price received by it from the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date when the letter of cancellation was written by the Developer to the plaintiffs. In our opinion, the said direction is just and proper however, looking to the rising price and inflationary trend in the country, we partly modify the judgment by increasing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 12% p.a. The said amount shall be paid to the plaintiffs by the Developer within two months from today.