Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) 2008 (12) SCC 145 [Bal Krishna v. Bhagwan Das] "14. It is also settled by various decisions of this Court that by virtue of Section 20 of the Act, the relief for specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. The exercise of the discretion to order specific performance would require the court to satisfy itself that the circumstances are such that it is equitable to grant decree for specific performance of the contract. While exercising the discretion, the court would take into consideration the circumstances of the case, the conduct of parties, and their respective interests under the contract. No specific performance of a contract, though it is not vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation, can be granted if it would give an unfair advantage to the plaintiff and where the performance of the contract would involve some hardship on the http://www.judis.nic.in defendant, which he did not foresee. In other words, the courts discretion to grant specific performance is not exercised if the contract is not equal and fair, although the contract is not void.

(iii) 2005 (1) CTC 426 [Ulaganatha Reddy vs. Nandagopal Cheti and others "25. The relief of specific performance is discretionary but not arbitrary and discretion must be exercised in accordance with the sound and reasonable judicial principles. The Court has first to consider whether the Plaintiff has established the case. http://www.judis.nic.in His conduct during, at and from the date of contract till date of suit bears great relevance. In a case of specific performance, it is for the Plaintiff to establish that the covenants in the contract are clear, cogent and fair; that he is ready and has always been ready and willing to perform his essential terms of the contract from the date of contract till date of decree. He must come to the Court with clean hands. If his conduct is tainted with falsity of the case or unworthy of acceptance, equity denies him the relief.

27. In the light of the above, if we consider the case in hand, we find that the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the Plaintiff to grant specific performance. Stipulated time for execution of the Sale deed was fixed by 31.1.1985. As per the terms of Agreement, the balance amount of Rs. 20,899 is to be paid before 31.1.1985 and the Sale Deed is to be obtained. Under Exs.A-2 (dated 28.11.1984) and A-3 (dated 29.1.1985) endorsements, the Plaintiff has paid a further advance of Rs. 8,000 + Rs. 10,000 respectively. A total amount of Rs. 20,101 has been paid, out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 23,000. The Balance amount of Rs. 1,899 remains to be paid. But the same was not paid by the Plaintiff within the stipulated time or within the reasonable time, after Ex.A-3 second endorsement which was made on 29.1.1985. Only the defendants have first issued Ex.A-4 notice on 30.6.1988 stating that the Plaintiff did not pursue the agreement within the stipulated time and inform him that he has lost his right. There is no evidence showing readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff to perform his part of the contract http://www.judis.nic.in during the interregnum period between 29.1.1985 and 30.6.1988. In the reply notice, it has been alleged that the Plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the defendants and get the sale Deed registered. Even in the reply notice, the Plaintiff had not fixed any specific date calling upon the defendants to execute the Sale Deed. By meticulous consideration of the conduct of the Plaintiff, this Court finds that the Courts below have rightly declined to exercise the discretion. The reason given by the Courts below in refusing to grant the relief of specific performance on the ground that there had been delay is well founded."

47. Point No. 5:

As per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act — discretion as to decreeing specific performance, grant of decree for specific performance of contract is not automatic and is one of the discretions of the Court and the Court has to consider whether it would be fair, just and equitable. But the discretion of the http://www.judis.nic.in Court is not arbitrary. But the one of the sound and reasonable and discretion guided by Principles of Justice, equity and good conscience. In Section 20(2) of the Act, certain circumstances have been mentioned as to under what circumstances, the Court shall exercise such discretion. If under the term of the contract the Plaintiff gets an unfair advantage over the Defendant, the Court may not exercise its discretion in favour of the Plaintiff. So, also specific relief may not be granted if the Defendant would be put to undue hardship which he did not foresee at the time of agreement, if it is inequitable to grant specific relief, then also the Court would desist from granting a decree to the Plaintiff. In exercising discretion, court is obliged to take into consideration circumstances of the case, conduct of the parties and respective interests under the contracts."