Case Law Digest On Specific Performance Cases
Case Law Digest On Specific Performance Cases
Case Law Digest On Specific Performance Cases
Sridhara babu. N
READINESS
AND
WILLINGNESS
IN
SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE SUIT
In Manjunath v. Tammanasa, AIR 2003 SC 1391 : 2003 (2) Cur
CC 177 : 2003 (10) SCC 390 and Rameshwar Prasad v. Basanti
Lal, AIR 2008 SC 2050, in specific terms it is laid down that
specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of
a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or
has always been ready and willing to perform the essential
terms of the contract. The requirement of law is two folds: (i)
that the plaintiff must aver in the plaint and (ii) that he must
prove by evidence that he was always been ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff cannot be allowed
to succeed if he fails to fulfil any of the two obligations enjoined
by law.
Supreme Court in Pramod Buildings and Developers Private
Limited vs. Shanta Chopra, (2011) 4 SCC 741. In this case it is
held that: In a suit for specific performance, burden lies on
plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform his
obligations in terms of contract. If plaintiff was not willing to
pay balance amount at the time of sale as agreed, he could not
claim that he was ready and willing to perform his obligations.
In the earlier decision viz. Pramod Buildings and Developers
Private Limited vs. Shanta Chopra, (2011) 4 SCC 741, the
decision
in
Man
Kaur
(Dead)
by Lrs.
vs.
Hartar
Singh
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE BEING EQUITABLE RELIEF CANNOT BE SOUGHT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS
It is settled law that the party who seeks to avail of the equitable
jurisdiction of a Court and specific performance being equitable
relief, must come to the Court with clean hands. In other words
the party who makes false allegations does not come with clean
hands and is not entitled to the equitable relief. This principle is
laid down in Lourdu Mari David and others v. Louis Chinnaya
Arogiaswamy and others, AIR 1996 SC 2814(1).
TIME IS THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT
As observed in A.K.Lakshmipathy (Dead) and Others vs. Rai
Saheb Pannalal H.Lahoti Charitable Trust and Others (2010) 1
SCC 287, the surrounding circumstances arising from the
nature of the case lead the Court to presume the time is the
essence of the contract and therefore this Court is also of view
that the plaintiff having failed to perform his part of contract, he
cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own mistake and
conveniently passes the blame on the defendant.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
STATE
OF
2010 SC
) SCC 350
HARYANA
1779 = 2010
This
&
ORS. VS MANOJ
(3
SCR 175
KUMAR
= 2010
AIR
(4
Sridhara babu. N
the effect that the suit was filed in the civil court with the
intention to avoid tax and stamp duty inasmuch as the value of
the property as per the circle rate was Rs.33,09,600, on which
stamp duty to be paid was Rs.5,13,050/- whereas the stamp
duty actually paid was only Rs.31,000/-, therefore stamp duty
to the tune of Rs.4,82,050 was payable. This order was upheld
by the Commissioner. The High Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 227 has set aside the orders passed
by the authorities below without any basis or rationale. Apart
from the jurisdiction, even what is factually stated in the order
of the District Collector as upheld by the Commissioner, is
unexceptionable and any interference was totally unwarranted.
CONTRACT WHOSE PERFORMANCE IS NOT POSSIBLE
WITHOUT DISOBEDIENCE TO LAW IS VOID 1965 KAR
NEMINATH
APPAYYA
HANAMANNAVAR
v.
JAMBURAO
of
ceiling
area
and
therefore
the
contract
is
Sridhara babu. N
WHEN
THERE
PARTIES
WAS
NO
REGARDING
AGREEMENT
ESSENTIAL
BETWEEN
TERMS
OF
THE
THE
Sridhara babu. N
The
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
DEFENDANT
AS LOAN--PLAINTIFF'S
Sridhara babu. N
DECREE
CAN
case
which the
plaintiff could
in
put forward
his
as
the suit.
possibly
In
such
result to the
separate suit.
EXECUTING
COURT
POSSESSION
OF
RELIEF
IS
GRANT
PROPERTY
GRANTED
PERFORMANCE
CAN
BY
EVEN
DELIVERY
WHERE
DECREE
FOR
NO
OF
SUCH
SPECIFIC
Sridhara babu. N
AIR 1991
how
Sridhara babu. N
the instant case, defendant has not even made clear in the
course of his evidence as to what was the price which he had
paid for the property in question. His evidence if read in a
proper perspective would indeed go to show that he was not
prepared to lay bare the facts within his knowledge for one
reason or the other. . It is also necessary to note here
that the defendant has agreed to sell the property in question to
the plaintiff for Rs. 14,000/-, and had actually received an
advance of Rs.2,000/-. The evidence on record does not go to
show that the consideration is inadequate, notwithstanding the
fact that inadequacy of consideration by itself cannot constitute
a factor warranting the refusal of the decree for specific
performance. On the other hand, the circumstances, would
indeed go to show that the price agreed to be paid by the
plaintiff to the defendant was fair. Further, there are no
circumstances to indicate that the parties namely, plaintiff's
and defendants were on unequal terms. Further, there is
nothing to show that the plaintiff had taken any undue or
unfair advantage of the position in which the defendant was
placed. Having regard to these materials I am indeed of the view
that the plea of hardship sought to he made at this stage by the
learned Advocate for the appellant does not find support from
the materials on record.
Sridhara babu. N
SWATANTER
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
In
1999(3)
Kar.L.J.
677
(Y.N.
Gopala
RAO
v.
D.R.
Laxminarayana and Ors.) it has been held by this Court that the
presumption in a suit for specific performance is that a breach
of contract cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in
money and that contract can be satisfied only by conveyance of
particular estate contracted for sale and the said presumption is
rebuttable, and the burden of rebutting is on the party opposing
enforcement of contract and where such party has failed to
rebut presumption, suit for specific performance is to be
decreed against such party. This principle is also stated in
Explanation (i) to Sub-section (b) of Section 10 of the Specific
Relief Act.
While adverting to Section 20 of the Act, it is stated in this
decision that rise in price is no ground to refuse specific
performance and the refusal may also have tendency to cause
hardship in the plaintiff in acquiring such property or other
property at such time.
In AIR 2004 SC 909 (M.S. Madhusoodhanan and Anr. v. Kerala
Kaumudi Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.) it is observed that the guidelines
for the exercise of the Court's discretion to decree specific
performance of an agreement have been statutorily laid down in
Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act and that, in Explanation
1 to Section 20, it is stated that mere inadequacy of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Pujari Narasappa and Anr. v. Shaik Hazrat and Ors. AIR 1960
Mys 59 has been cited on behalf of the appellant to contend
that where permission of the collector is a condition precedent
for alienation under the Act and the plaintiffs sought before the
Civil Court specific performance of the agreement to sell and if
the said suit is decreed, it would defeat the pre-condition of
Sridhara babu. N
purchasing
agricultural
land
and
if
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
READINESS
AND
WILLINGNESS
INFERRED
FROM
SYED ZAHEER
DEC
REPORTED
18
2009
HONBLE
JUSTICES: K.L.
IN
ILR
2010
MANJUNATH
KAR
AND
765,
B.V.
NAGARATHNA,
WHEN
NO
TIME
IS
FIXED
UNDER
CONTRACT
AND
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
light of the decision of the Apex Court. It is seen that the land
grant which Is the subject matter of the agreement in question
was made in the year 1983 and there was a fifteen year period
of non-alienation which would have come to an end only In the
year 1998. However, three years prior to that date i.e., in the
year 1995 Itself legal notice was sent to the respondent stating
that on account of the non-alienation clause, the contract could
not be performed by the appellants on account of permission
not been obtained from the concerned authority by them. At
that point of time there were still three more years for the nonalienation period to come to an end and therefore, it was
premature on the part of the appellants to contend that in the
year 1995 itself that on account of the non-alienation clause the
contract could not be performed on account of permission not
being
obtained.
However,
declaration
with
regard
to
Sridhara babu. N
AIR 2008 SC 1267, B.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR VS
M/S BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD BENCH: DR.
ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
Specific Relief Act, 1963; Ss.16 & 20 The suit was for specific
performance and the Trial Court recorded findings about
adverse possession. That being so, triable issues are involved.
When triable issues are involved, the appeals should not be
summarily dismissed or disposed of in the manner done.
bare reading of the High Court's judgment shows that there was
no serious effort made by it to analyse the various points raised.
The
High
Court
has
given
finding
regarding
adverse
possession in a suit for specific performance. There is total nonapplication of mind by the High Court. The manner in which the
appeals were dismissed cannot be said to be proper. Hence, the
matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the same afresh
The nature of suit for specific performance of contract has been
highlighted by Supreme Court in several cases. In Rajeshwari v.
Puran Indoria (2005 (7) SCC 60), it was inter- alia observed as
under: "Normally, a suit for specific performance of an
agreement for sale of immovable property involves the question
whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract in terms of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act,
whether it was a case for exercise of discretion by the court to
decree specific performance in terms of Section 20 of the
Specific Relief Act and whether there were laches on the part of
the plaintiff in approaching the court to enforce specific
performance of the contract. In some cases, a question of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
being
extended,
even
though
originally
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
reasonable time. A
facie
meaning
of
reasonable
in
regard
to
those
Sridhara babu. N
was
valid
contract
Moreover,
vendor
Sridhara babu. N
willingness and readiness to pay balance sale consideration Plaintiff entitled to decree for specific performance.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:
1. There was no valid reason to disturb the factual finding based
on acceptable materials. The Single Judge of the High Court
committed an error in taking a contrary view.
2. All agreements of sale are bilateral contracts as promises are
made by both - the vendor agreeing to sell and the purchaser
agreeing to purchase. An agreement of sale comes into existence
when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to
purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can
be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or
may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by
both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each
party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as
a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by
the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. Or
it can be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it
to the purchaser who accepts it. S.10 of the Contract Act, 1872
provides all agreements are contracts if they are made by the
free consent by the parties competent to contract, for a lawful
consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly
declared to be void. The proviso to s.10 of the Act makes it clear
that the section will not apply to contracts which are required to
be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses or any law
relating to registration of documents. Even an oral agreement to
Sridhara babu. N
Supreme Court in
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
of
the
property;
and
(iii)
from
the
surrounding
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
& ORS BENCH: DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM:Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 13 - Suit for specific performance of
agreement of sale - In respect of the property allotted to the
alleged vendor by Government - Suit decreed - Set aside by first
appellate court - In second appeal, High Court confirming the
decree and directing the Government Department to transfer the
property in favour of the alleged vendor and then to transfer the
same to the vendee as per the agreement - On appeal, held : The
agreement was null and void - The property vested with the
Government and the allottee thereof had no alienable right
thereto - Direction of the High Court is not correct
The High Court could not have directed transfer of the property
in favour of the appellant and thereafter directing him to
transfer the property by giving full effect to the agreement for
sale. Such a course is unknown in law.
Section 13 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with rights of a
purchaser in certain cases, where a person contracts to sell or
let certain immovable property having no title or only an
imperfect title. These rights enable the purchaser to take action
when title of vender is bettered in the circumstances given in
this Section. The vender is under a duty to prove his title and to
convey what he has contracted to convey. The Section gives
right to purchaser in the event there is a defect in title as
enumerated in Clauses (a) to (d) to compel the vender to convey
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
PIARA SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS BENCH: S.B. SINHA & V.S.
SIRPURKAR
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 12, 16 ( c ), 20 and 28 - Agreement
of sale - Failure to execute sale deed - Suit for specific
performance of contract - Subsequent change in the revenue
survey numbers in respect of the land in question - Trial court
denying decree of specific performance holding that vendee
failed to comply with requirements of s. 16 (c ) having failed to
state that he was always ready and willing - However directed
refund of the advance amount paid by the vendee - First
appellate court denying the decree of specific performance on
the ground that there was failure to show readiness and
willingness in respect of the changed revenue survey numbers High Court in second appeal decreeing the suit - On appeal,
held: Decree of specific performance is liable to be passed in
respect of the land which formed subject matter of the original
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
same and would not change the nature of suit from suit for
specific performance to suit for declaration - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 r.17. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Order 6 r.17 - Amendment application - Held: Can be allowed by
court in its discretion even where the relief sought to be added
by amendment is barred by limitation.
When the description of a part of the suit property was found to
be a mutual mistake, appellant filed an application under Order
6 Rule 17 CPC seeking the amendment of the plaint and for
giving the description of the suit property. The trial Court
rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground
that plaint was filed on the basis of agreement to sell and since
no prayer was made for amending
the agreement,
the
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
that
allowing
and
rejecting
an
application
for
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
R.C. Chandiok and Anr. vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal and Ors.
reported in (1970) 3 SCC 140 stated: "6.Readiness and
willingness cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula. These
have
to
be
determined
from
the
entirety
of
facts
and
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
section
makes
it
obligatory
to
plaintiff
seeking
Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi and Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC
420. In that case also this Court took into consideration the
averments made by the plaintiff in Paragraphs 6 to 11 of the
plaint and opined: "9.It is thus clear that an averment of
readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical
formula which should only be in specific words. If the averments
in the plaint as a whole do clearly indicate the readiness and
willingness of the plaintiff to fulfil his part of the obligations
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
cxpart of the
In
Lourdu
Mari
David
and
Ors.
vs.
Louis
Chinnaya
Sridhara babu. N
final
notice
dated
3-7-1973.
If
such
rescission
or
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the
form
of an
affidavit
is
omission
by
"type
requested
amendment
after
the
commencement
of
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
(3) SCR 648] that it is well settled that in a suit for specific
performance the plaintiff should allege that he is ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract and in the absence of
such an allegation the suit is not maintainable."
Without noticing the said decision, however, another two
Judges bench in R.C. Chandiok and Anr. vs. Chuni Lal
Sabharwal
and
Ors.
reported
in
(1970)
SCC
140
bench
of
this
Court
in
Syed
Dastagir
vs.
T.R.
Sridhara babu. N
interpretation
section."
specific
of
his
plea
in
terms
of
the
said
"ready
and
willing
to
perform"
in
this
nomenclature are not there but from the aforesaid plea, could it
be read that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform
his part of that obligation ? In other words, can it be said that
he has not pleaded that he is "ready and willing" to perform his
part ? Courts cannot draw any inference in the abstract or to
give such hypertechnical interpretation to defeat a claim of
specific performance which defeats the very objective for which
the said Act was enacted. The section makes it obligatory to a
plaintiff seeking enforcement of specific performance that he
must not only come with clean hands but there should be a plea
that he has performed or has been and is ready and willing to
perform his part of the obligation. Unless this is there, Section
16(c) creates a bar to the grant of this discretionary relief. As we
have said, for this it is not necessary to plea by any specific
words, if through any words it reveals the readiness and
willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the obligation
Sridhara babu. N
Motilal Jain vs. Ramdasi Devi and Ors. reported in (2000) 6 SCC
420. "9.It is thus clear that an averment of readiness and
willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which
should only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint
as a whole do clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of
the plaintiff to fulfil his part of the obligations under the
contract which is the subject-matter of the suit, the fact that
they are differently worded will not militate against the
readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance of contract for sale. In the instant case a perusal
of paras 6 to 11 of the plaint does clearly indicate the readiness
and willingness of the plaintiff. The only obligation which he
had to comply with was payment of balance of consideration. It
was stated that he demanded the defendant to receive the
balance of consideration of Rs. 8000 and execute the sale deed.
The defendant was in Patna (Bihar) at the time of notices and
when he came back to his place the plaintiff filed the suit
against him. In support of his case, he adduced the evidence of
PW 1 and PW 2. The plaintiff had parted with two-thirds of the
consideration at the time of execution of Ext. 2. There is no
reason why he would not pay the balance of one-third
consideration of Rs. 8000 to have the property conveyed in his
favour."
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
In
Lourdu
Mari
David
and
Ors.
vs.
Louis
Chinnaya
final
notice
dated
3-7-1973.
If
such
rescission
or
Sridhara babu. N
Yet again in Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and
Ors. reported in (2002) 8 SCC 146 this Court observed: "6. It is
true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the
discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not
always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the
reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the
court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition
including payment of an additional amount by one party to the
other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance."
G.S.
Singhvi,
and
Justice
Sudhansu
Jyoti
Sridhara babu. N
LOWER
APPELLATE
COURT
FINDINGS:- The
respondent
agreement. The
lower
appellate
Court
independently
Sridhara babu. N
concurred with the lower appellate Court that the trial Court
was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 20 (2) (c)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, the Act) for the
purpose of declining substantive relief to the respondent. The
learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments of this Court
in K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (1999) 5 SCC 77,
Sargunam (Dead) by LRs. v. Chidambaram (supra) 1 SCC 162
and Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand 2000 (7) SCC 548, and held
that inadequacy of consideration or the fact that the contract is
onerous to the defendant is not sufficient to deny the relief of
specific performance.
Sridhara babu. N
and
willing
to
pay
the
balance
price
and
from
the
plaintiff
in
the
presence
of
marginal
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
performance.
This
circumstance
is
material
and
other
attending
circumstances.
The
amount
of
Sridhara babu. N
the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract.
We are also inclined to agree with the lower appellate Court that
escalation in the price of the land cannot, by itself, be a ground
for denying relief of specific performance. In K. Narendra v.
Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. ((1999) 5 SCC 77), this Court
interpreted Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following
propositions: Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is
discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief
merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is
not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial
principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal.
Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the
defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance
involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the
circumstances in which the court may properly exercise
discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of
comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in
India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere
fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident
in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the
plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the
defendant.
In the present case, the appellant had neither pleaded hardship
nor produced any evidence to show that it will be inequitable to
order specific performance of the agreement.
Sridhara babu. N
OF
SUCH
AGREEMENT
TO
BUY
AGRICULTURAL LAND
JUSTICE S Bannurmath, and JUSTICE S B Adi of Karnataka
High court in the case of Manasa Housing Co-Op vs
Marikellaiah Decided on 20-03-2006, held that "No doubt
Section 79B bars for holding an agricultural land by a person
who is not an agriculturist personally cultivating the land.
Similarly, Section 80 also bars transfer of agricultural land in
favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or agricultural
labourer or for non-agricultural purpose. However, the Assistant
Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area or any officer
not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner is authorised
by the State Government in this behalf in respect, of any area
may grant permission for such sale, gift or exchange, (to enable
a person other than a person disentitled to acquire or hold the
land under Section 79A or Section 79(B) who bona-fide intend of
taking up agriculture to acquire land on such conditions
enumerated therein. It is true that Section 80 bars the sale, gift
or exchange or lease of any land to a person who is not an
agriculturist and it. also bars for transfer of such lands for nonagricultural purpose. What is contemplated under Section 80 is
a prohibition of sale, gift, exchange or lease or interest therein
on
the
agricultural
land
in
favour
of
non-agriculturist.
Sridhara babu. N
permission
for
holding
the
agricultural
land.
Sridhara babu. N
the
plaintiff
is
entitled
for
decree
for
specific
performance or not.
In this regard it is useful to refer to the decision in the matter of
State
Of
Karnataka
v.
Krishnaji
Srinivas
Kulkarni
and
Ors. 1994 SCC (2) 558 , wherein it. is held that the
questions which are required to be decided by the authorities
under the Act, the Civil Court, is not conferred with the
jurisdiction to decide the same. In this case undisputedly, the
question raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents
requires to be decided only by the authority prescribed under
Section 83 of the Act.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
injury
or
dispossession.
Irreparable
injury,
Sridhara babu. N
performance.
This
circumstance
is
material
and
other
attending
circumstances.
The
amount
of
Sridhara babu. N
the plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract.
provides
that
the
jurisdiction
to
decree
specific
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
WILLINGNESS
TO
PERFORM
CONTRACT
IN
SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE
Piarey Lal vs. Hori Lal (1977 (2) SCC 221) for adopting such
view. It was also concluded that the materials on record did not
justify the conclusion that the plaintiffs were ready and willing
to perform their part of the contract.
FALSE PLEA IN SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SUIT - NO
RELIEF
K.Venkatasubbayya v. K.Venkateswarlu and others AIR 1971
AP 279, plaintiff who sets up false plea of payment, is not
entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance.
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Conditions
mentioned
to
obtain
the
necessary
Sridhara babu. N
that Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and plaint
should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper
court - Appeal against - In which court a suit for specific
performance of agreement relating to immovable property would
lie? - Held, s. 16 recognizes a well established principle that
actions against res or property should be brought in the forum
where such res is situate - A court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with
and decide the rights or interests in such property - Delhi Court
has no jurisdiction since property is not situate within
jurisdiction of that court - Trial court was, therefore, right in
passing an order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for
presentation to the proper court - Appeal dismissed.... Harshad
Chiman Lal Modi v. Dlf Universal and Another (SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA) D.D: 26/9/2005
WRONGFULLY WITHHELD PROPERTY OF THE COMPANY
Companies Act, 1956, s. 630 - Wrongfully withheld property of
the
company
Held,
possession
of
company's
flat
by
Sridhara babu. N
and
latter's
natural
father
for
purpose
of
proper
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
and
certain
correspondence
with
the
vendor.
Sridhara babu. N
A contract for sale or an agreement for sale does not create any
title in favour of the transferee. But the provision section 53A of
T.P.Act creates a bar on the transferor to seek possession from
the transferee. Patel Natwarlal Rupji case: AIR 1996 SC 1088.
The person who acquired the property with notice that another
person has entered into a contract affecting that property does
not acquire title to that property but imposes on him the
obligation to hold the property for the benefit of the other person
to the extent necessary to give effect to the contract provided
that the contract is one of which specific performance can be
enforced. Khaja Bi and Others case: AIR 1964 Mys 269 (275).
(FB).{ see section 40 of T.P.Act and Section 91 of Indian Trusts
Act }
Way to transfer to non agriculturist:- Bar under Kar Land
Reforms Act sec 80, Kar Land Revenue act sec 95(2) and
Registration Act sec 22A operates only if under deed of transfer,
possession of agriculture land is delivered to purchaser, who is
not agriculturist. Where deed is only agreement to sell
agricultural land after getting necessary permission to divert for
non- agricultural use, and agreement does not involve delivery
of possession, agreement cannot be construed as one opposed
to public policy or contrary to law. Township Enterprises case
before Karnataka High Court, Decided on 16-11-2004. Reported
in 2005 (1) KarLJ 385.
Consequence of possession given in Sale agreements: It has to
be executed with stamp paper equal to that of Conveyance or
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
this
court
inGomathinayagam
Pillai
v.
Pallaniswami
Nadar [1967 (1) SCR 227] and Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Hari
Dutt Shastri [1977 (2) SCC 539], this Court further held that
Sridhara babu. N
of
the
contract
may
however
be
evidenced
by
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
money
is
an
adequate
relief,
automatically
operates,
In
P.S.Ranakrishna
Reddy
vs.
M.K.Bhagyalakshmi
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
the
stipulation
as
to
time
the
essence
of
the
contract".
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
(ii) the knowledge that they admittedly had at least about the
other encumbrances existing in the property and
(iii) their retention of an amount of Rs.2.5 crores from out of the
total sale consideration of Rs.4,11,08,000/-, specially for the
purpose of settling the claim of the plaintiffs.
discretion
of
Courts
as
to
decreeing
specific
In Jugraj Singh -vs- Labh Singh {(1995) 2 SCC 31}, the Apex
Court held that the plea that the plaintiff was not ready and
willing to perform his part of the obligations, was not available
to the subsequent purchaser.
Bench in Lakhi Ram -vs- Trikha Ram {(1998) 2 SCC 720}, a
different view was not settled. However, in Ram Awadh (dead)
by L.R.s -vs- Achchaibar Dubey {(2000) 2 SCC 428}, the
Sridhara babu. N
discretion
not
to
grant
the
relief
of
specific
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
K.Narendra vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd {1999 (5) SCC 77}
as follows:- "30. Chitty on Contracts (27th Edn., 1994,
Vol. 1., at p. 1296) states:
"Severe hardship may be a ground for refusing specific
performance even though it results from circumstances which
arise after the conclusion of the contract, which affect the
person of the defendant rather than the subject-matter of the
contract,
and
for
responsible."
which
The
the
above
plaintiff
decision
is
was
in
no
relied
way
upon
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
noticed
and
rectified
there
itself
and
in
such
to
and
in
any
event,
omission
of
mandatory
Sridhara babu. N
2006
SCC
420 (Motilal
Jain
v.
Ramdasi
Devi
Sridhara babu. N
Sridhara babu. N
wherein,
this
court
held
that
section
places
Sridhara babu. N
vs N.M.
Sridhara babu. N
Civil
Court
balance
consideration
application on 28.5.2007.
on
28.5.2007
or
made
an
comply
with
the
automatically.
SALE CONSIDERATION ORDERED TO BE REFUNDED WITH
INTEREST CONSIDERING MUTUAL HARDSHIP AND DELAY
2015 SC
JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA & JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI of
Supreme
Court
of
India
in
the
case
of
NANJAPPAN
Though the
specific
decree
but
Sridhara babu. N