best option is agreement for sale between A and B should be cancelled

2) A should refund B Rs 17 lakhs .

3) then sale deed be executed between A and C

4)payment of Rs 17 lakhs to B should be made by A and not by you as advance was received by A only

5)to avoid any sort of further litigation, when the purchaser has the knowledge that some other claimants also claiming some rights over such property and he is willing to settle the disputes with such other claimants he can show them as confirming parties

6) B is signing as consenting witness that he is aware of the transaction

1. It is not wise to split the amount into two. let a single amount be paid which can be divided between A and B.

2. B should be described as confirming party than a witness.

3.There is no Taxation issue here if C has enough income.

1. according to section 54 of the transfer of property act, an agreement to sell does not confer any right. so B cannot claim as owner, his status as agreement holder is right because then he can claim compensation as mentioned in the agreement i.e. 20lakh and you get ownership accordingly.

2. hence the tripartite agreement as suggested by your lawyer is right. you can proceed on his advise.

In this scenario you will require to enter into a Deed of Assignment to be executed between the actual purchaser (B) and yourself, in which the part payment must be shown.

One who confirms the sale having absolute rights or being the joint owner can be the confirming party, others who have indirect rights over the property become the consenting witness in such transactions. In your case it would suffice if B signs the deed of absolute sale as a Confirming party.

If B's payment is not mentioned in the absolute sale deed then why B is being roped in and this tripartite agreement?

There is nothing wrong in mentioning the payment made to B, in fact that will safeguard yor interest in future in the event of B's demise and his legal heirs emerging to claim a share in the property owing to the sale agreement and the advance amount already paid by B.

In fact it would be better that B is made as a confirming party so that it is indirectly termed as B relinquish his rights.

Since C is paying the full sale consideration amount he should not face taxation problems

you have to always play safe

2) i have advised you that agreement between A and B should be cancelled

3) then A can sell property to C

4) if possession has been handed over to B regd sale deed is a must

5) dont proceed with purchase of property

6) later you would have problems in selling the property as agreement between A and B is not regd

If there is any valid sale agreement existing between A and B as on the date?

If so, if you still would like to go ahead with the purchase without any legal hassle, enter into a tripartite agreement with both of them and make the terms of payment accordingly.

The buyer of an immovable property (land, flat, apartment or shop) which is valued at Rs 50,00,000/-or more is required to pay a withholding tax to the government. The prevailing withholding tax is deducted at source, and is 1% of the consideration payable to the seller. It is the responsibility of the buyer to deduct the tax from payment to seller and deposit the same in the government treasury. Where the transaction is less than Rs 50,00,000 /-, the liability to deduct tax at source will not be applicable.

Therefore you may have to think about next step to be followed in this regard if you are going to pay the sale consideration amount above Rs. 50,00, 000/-

If the property is not in the name of B and if the B has not even entered into any sale agreement, then B has no role to play in this even though A and B may be having different kinds of understandings between them in respect of this property.

You consult an advocate in the local and take his opinion and advise on all such further issues.

If on an Agreement of sale, the possession is given in favour of the Purchaser, the agreement of sale is deemed to be one with Possession and stamp duty and registration fee must be paid in full as in Conveyance of Immovable Property. If in this case, the agreement of sale is unregistered, it is not valid and possession is not recognized as per law.

Your observation is absolutely correct when you point out that any payment to be made must be in favour of A only and not in favour of B as B has not become the absolute owner by virtue of the unregistered agreement of sale (with possession), Between A & B there may be an informal or oral agreement that B will have possession of the schedule property since he has paid Rs.17.00 Lakhs to A, but the law does not recognize this and therefore C is not bound to make any payment in favour of B in this scenario.

Any payment done in favour of B can be challenged by A or his legal representatives at a later date, as A continues to be the absolute owner.