In 1883, the Earl of Selborne LC reconciled the tensions between the status of fraud and the just doctrine of partial delivery in Maddison v Alderson (1883) 8 App Cas 467 ii. The performance of the replacement contract can only take place if the party who suffers such an offence, the party who invites him to execute the contract within the time frame specified in the notice of contract, in writing, and, if the party who violates it is refused or omission, a written notification may be made by a third party or his agency. iii. The aggrieved party has no right to recover costs and costs, unless the aggrieved party receives the contract by a third party or its agency. It is stipulated that Section 53-A does not confer a right to the TPA on a party that was not willing to perform its part of the contract. A buyer must prove that he was honest and willing to do his part under the contract. He cited this example, where the acts of partial benefit would suffice: the Supreme Court`s decision above upheld the previous right, that it is not always necessary to grant relief from the particular benefit simply because the law provides for such discharge, but the order must be based on the facts and circumstances of the case, after consideration of the tax interest of both parties. The Tribunal therefore correctly concluded that the acts on which the applicant was based were not sufficient to appeal to the teaching of partial provision. (paragraph 79) “… In the event of the sale of the same property for the benefit of a previous and subsequent purchaser, and where the subsequent purchaser has paid the purchase money to the seller as part of the promotion in his favour, the question of the appropriate form of the decree arises in such a case if successful.
The practice of the courts in India has not been uniform and there are three different ways of thinking. From a point of view, the correct form of the decree is to cancel the subsequent purchase only in relation to the former purchaser and the direct transport by the seller. A second is that both the seller and the seller should join, while a third party would limit the execution of the transport to the subsequent buyer. According to the Supreme Court, the correct form of the decree is to guide the specific performance of the contract between the seller and the former purchaser and to order the subsequent purchaser to participate in the promotion in order to transfer the title that resides there to the former purchaser. It does not associate itself with specific alliances between the former purchaser and its seller; it transmits its title only to the previous purchaser… This is not proof of the contract in question, but transactions between the parties which, by their very nature, prove that the parties are in the middle of a sale contract or other real estate disposition. (para. 50) A simpliciter sale and purchase agreement is a reciprocal agreement that imposes obligations and benefits on both parties and is applicable in the case of one of the two parties.
The interpretation of such a contract would be governed by treaty laws with respect to the performance of reciprocal commitments.  If, as part of an agreement, an option is reserved for a seller to buy back the property he sells, the option is inherent in a concession or prerogative and may be exercised in strict compliance with the conditions it may meet.  i. A clear reading of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, makes it clear that the document containing the contract for the transfer of rights, property or participation in a property for compensation must be registered if the party intends to rely on it within the meaning of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Ownership Act. , 1882 to protect his property through declared property.