The previous Supreme Court decision upheld the ongoing right that it is not always necessary to grant relief from the special benefit simply because the law provides for such a discharge, but the decision must, after considering the cheap interest of both parties, be based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The loss falls on the seller, although the merchandise is the buyer`s property. In accordance with paragraph 6, paragraph 1, the sale status largely includes existing goods owned by the seller or owned or owned by the seller. While in the sales agreement, the seller indicates that it is influencing a current supply of future products, it depends entirely on the eventuality of the event that may or may not occur. In the sale agreement, the parties agree to exchange the goods for a price that depends on compliance with certain conditions at a later date. A sale agreement can be defined as the transfer of ownership of property that must take place in the future or the transfer may take place depending on certain conditions. The same thing was defined in section 4, paragraph 3. A sale agreement also becomes a sale if the time is up and have passed or if the conditions for the transfer are met. Thus, a sale agreement sets out the terms of the seller`s offer of a property to the buyer. In this case, it was found that there was no breach of the condition and that the purchaser had no right to refuse the contract and to refuse the goods. However, the buyer is entitled to the damage.

The Supreme Court found that during the course of the trial, the complainant presented the Tribunal with documents indicating that the value of the property was six lakhs and thirty thousand rupees on November 20, 2006. The applicant also recorded in the minutes a document indicating the value of the property as of April 1, 1999. The Supreme Court found that, although the above aspects were taken into account by the Tribunal and the first Court of Appeal, they were not accepted, while granting discharge of a certain benefit in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court found that the contractual terms, the conduct of the parties at the time the contract was concluded and the circumstances in which the contract was entered into gave the respondent an unfair advantage over the applicants, making it unfair to impose the exemption from the special benefit. Given that the complainant proposed to pay ten lakhs as compensation instead of a certain benefit, the Supreme Court found that the payment of an 15-lakh rupee award would meet the objectives of justice. The deed of sale is the most important legal document by which a seller transfers his right of ownership to the buyer, who then acquires the absolute ownership of the property. The Supreme Court of India in 2012, in the case of Suraj Lamp – Industries (P) Ltd (2) v. Haryana State, while examining the validity of the sale of real estate by proxy, has done as to: The above definition indicates that a sale agreement contains a promise to transfer a property in the future, on compliance with certain conditions. This agreement itself therefore does not create any rights or interests on the property for the proposed buyer. In this case, however, it was found that there was a breach of the implied condition of the security on which the sale and the sale agreement was based. Therefore, the buyer has the right to recover the entire purchase price, even though he had been using the vehicle for four months.