Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 22 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
P.Daivasigamani vs S.Sambandan on 12 October, 2022
42. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Deivasigamani Vs. S.Sambandan, Civil
Appeal No.9006 of 2011, dated 12.10.2022. In the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Sec. 20 confers the discretion on the
Court to exercise jurisdiction to decree specific performance of contract
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 40
A.S.Nos.211 and 355 of 2013
and that such exercise should not be arbitrary but should be guided by
sound and reasonable judicial principles. The Apex Court also held that the
requirements of Sec.16(c), 20 and 22 of the Act have to properly pleaded
by the parties in their respective pleading and proved with the aid of
evidence, in accordance with law and that only thereafter the Court was
entitled to exercise discretion and accordingly grant or refuse the relief of
specific performance, depending upon the case made out by the parties on
facts. The Apex Court also listed factors like hardship to defendant/seller
which he did not foresee, hardship to plaintiff/purchaser in case of
non-performance, enforcement of specific performance being inequitable
and the conduct of parties including that of the defendant/seller and other
circumstances which may result in an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over
the defendant, to be considered by the Court while deciding a suit for
specific performance. The Apex Court further held that the Court should
examine whether the plaintiff has performed his part of contract, and if so,
how and to what extent, and in what manner and whether such
performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract. Applying
the facts of the present case, to the various factors set out by the Apex
Court, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever under which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 41
A.S.Nos.211 and 355 of 2013
plaintiff can be the beneficiary of the discretion to be exercised by this
Court. The plaintiff sent notices just to gain time without any indication of
his readiness to pay balance. The delay of 9 months in filing the suit
seeking specific performance even after receiving the letter from the
defendants, cancelling the agreement is a very relevant factor to not
exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff, especially when the specific
case of defendants regarding steep rise in price was pleaded. Therefore,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said finding of the
Trial Court. This Court accordingly answers point 3.
Point 4:
Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap . vs Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar ... on 13 August, 2019
25. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap
and Others vs. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar (dead) through legal
representatives and others, reported in (2020) 15 SCC 731, wherein it is
held that the plaintiff had a limitation period of three years for filing a suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22
A.S.Nos.211 and 355 of 2013
for specific performance and that during such period it cannot be said that
the plaintiff was required to show any overt act at his end in furtherance of
the agreement in question. However, on a reading of the entire judgment,
on the facts of the case before the Apex Court, considering that there was a
supplementary agreement for sale and subsequent payments made by the
plaintiff and considering the conduct of the parties, the Apex Court held
that when a suit for specific performance was filed within the period of
limitation, the delay cannot be put against the plaintiff. However, in the
very same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Polepalle Subramanyam Chetty And ... vs Gundamreddy Peddakka on 24 July, 2000
37. Further, the explanation to Sec.12, if properly understood, then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35
A.S.Nos.211 and 355 of 2013
also the entire Sec.12 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. A
learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Polepalle
Subramanyam Chetty and others Vs. Gundamreddy Peddakka, reported
in AIR 2001 AP 204, discussed the applicability of Sec.12 permitting part
performance of a contract and on the facts in the said case, held “ when
both the plaintiff and defendant were aware of the fact that the defendant
had title only to one half share in the property and it was not a case where
the parties to the agreement subsequently found that the vendor had no title
to the whole of the property, Sec.12 would not have any application. The
incapability to perform the contract as contemplated in Sec.12 must be in
relation to the agreement entered into and such inability refers to only the
inability to confer title to the whole of the property agreed to be sold.”
1