Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.41 seconds)Section 12 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punla on 22 August, 1988
27. It was observed in this case that an alternative prayer by a plaintiff in a suit cannot be construed as a waiver or abandonment of the main relief in the suit. Also, it was observed that a lawful agreement being proved and the judicial conscience of the Court being satisfied, equity would demand enforcement of an agreement rather than granting an alternative relief of damages to the plaintiff. Equity must give relief where equity demands. When the time has been taken by the Courts in deciding suits or appeals, this normally should not be allowed to work to the disadvantage of the party to the lis. The acts of the Courts shall cause prejudice to none was so stated by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, (1989-1)95 P.L.R. 143 (S.C.)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Kartar Singh vs Harjinder Singh And Others on 21 February, 1990
The judgment in Kartar Singh's case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts in hand. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that Jasbir Kaur was not a contracting party to the agreement of sale dated 11.4.1989 through her father-in-law Buta Singh, still the plaintiff can compel Darshan Singh and Mohinder Singh to sell their share in the land which was agreed to be sold by their father Buta Singh. The vendee may ultimately seeks partition from other co-sharers in the partition proceedings.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Sardar Singh vs Smt. Krishna Devi And Another on 21 November, 1990
15. Reliance can also be placed upon Sardar Singh v. Smt. Krishna Devi and Anr., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 393 (S.C.)
Ram Dass vs Ram Lubhaya on 19 March, 1998
In Ram Dass v. Ram Lubhaya 1998(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 642, it was held that the principle of equity, good conscience and fairness is the foundation of grant of relief of specific performance. The object of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is to avoid resultant undue hardship to one party while avoiding undue gain to the other. Mere lapse of time and in adequate consideration are no grounds to exercise discretion under Section 20 because Section 20 is an exception to the rule of grant of relief of specific performance. Once lawful agreement is proved, equity would demand enforcement of an agreement rather than grant of alternative relief of damage if the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Equity has to be balanced. If the defendant was guilty of the breach of agreement he cannot be held entitled to any protection of equity.