Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

proved and further requirements for getting such a decree are established then the court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance."

28. Reference may also be made by this Court in the case of Zarina Siddiqui vs. A. Ramalingam, 2015 (1) SCC 705, this Court observed as under:­ r"33. The equitable discretion to grant or not to grant a relief for specific performance also depends upon the conduct of the parties. The necessary ingredient has to be proved and established by the plaintiff so that discretion would be exercised judiciously in favour of the plaintiff. At the same time, if the defendant does not come with clean hands and suppresses material facts and evidence and misleads the court then such discretion should not be exercised by refusing to grant specific performance."

"7. While evaluating whether specific performance ought to have been decreed in the present case, it would be necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles of law. The court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but is "sound and reasonable", to be "guided by judicial principles". The exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a court of appeal in the hierarchy of appellate courts. Sub­section 2 of Section 20 contains a stipulation of those cases where the court may exercise its discretion not to grant specific performance. Sub­ Section 2 of Section 20 is in the following terms :

performance is discretionary. The circumstances specified in Section 20 are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The court would take into consideration the circumstances in each case, the conduct of the parties and the respective interest under the contract."

9.3. Reiterating the position in K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd, this Court held thus : (SCC p.91, para

29) "...29. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non­performance 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. The principle underlying Section 20 has been summed up by this Court in Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswamy by stating that the decree for specific performance is in the discretion of the Court but the discretion should not be used arbitrarily; the .

18. Further, once the agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such a decree are .

established then the Court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance.

19. No doubt, the appellate Court had the discretion and was not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it was lawfully to do so, but then such discretion ought not to be arbitrary and had to be "sound and reasonable" guided by judicial principles.