Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant also invited the attention of this Court to Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, which reads as follows:-

"20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance:- (1) 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, but 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.

21. Thus, by relying upon the above decision, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the discretion of the Court to grant a decree for specific performance should be guided by settled judicial principles and it should not be arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court shall not grant a decree for specific performance, if the terms of the contract give a unfair advantage over the defendant. In the present case, admittedly, the value of the property was fixed in the year 1998. The delay in securing the purchasers should be shouldered only by the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he secured all the prospective purchasers in 1998 and the defendant denied the execution of sale deed. Having delayed the process for over 7 years, it is not within the limits of the plaintiff to compel enforcement of the contract.

"25. 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 vs. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 77, this Court interpreted Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following propositions.(SCC p.91, para 29)

"29. 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 comparitive hardship has thus statutorily recognised 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 dfendant (emphasis supplied)

"43. Bhan, J., however, while expressing his dissension in part observed; (SCC pp. 506 & 507, paras 38 & 40) "38. It is well settled that in cases of contract for sale of immovable property the grant of relief of specific performance is a rule and its refusal an exception based on valid and cogent grounds. Further, the defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong and then plead that decree for specific performance would be an unfair advantage to the plaintiff.
....
40. Escalation of price during the period may be a relevant consideration under certain circumstances for either refusing to grant the decree of specific performance or for decreeing the specific performance with a direction to the plaintiff to pay an additional amount to the defendant and compensate him. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."