Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Section 15 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Abdul Aziz Sahib vs M. Abdul Sammad Sahib And Anr. on 18 March, 1937
10. The present Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act corresponds to Sections 17, 14, 15, 16 and 13 of the old Act with slight modifications. The Madras High Court had occasion to consider these sections in Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Sammad, AIR 1937 Mad 596. Defendant in that case agreed to sell certain plot of land in which he had only one-third share and the remaining 2/3rd share belonged to his children. The contract became incapable of performance as the two sons were unwilling to fulfil it. The plaintiff sought specific performance. The Madras High Court held that the contract was not divisible into two parts, one relating to a third of the plot and the other relating to the remaining two-thirds. It is observed that the court could not substitute a new bargain and force a new contract on the parties by decreeing the plaintiffs claim with respect to one-third share of the defendant on payment of the price in proportion to that share. It was held that the specific performance of the contract with respect to the defendant's share could not therefore be granted under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. It has to be noted that Section 15 of the Act as it then stood permitted specific performance of a part of the contract only on payment of the whole of the amount agreed to be paid. The refusal by the court to enforce the agreement in respect of a part of the agreement by paying part consideration was therefore in accordance with the provisions of law as they stood then.
Section 17 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Kartar Singh vs Harjinder Singh And Others on 21 February, 1990
The enforcement in the suit is therefore regarding the 1/3rd share belonging to the respondent which as observed by the Supreme Court is the whole of the contract as far as respondent is concerned. Under the agreement respondent had contracted to sell his entire share over the property along with his brothers. What is sought to be enforced is only an agreement regarding that share. Applying the principle of the decision in Kartar Singh's case (AIR 1990 SC 854) (supra) it is held that the enforcement claimed is not that of a part of a contract but the whole of the contract as far as respondent is concerned. That part is severable from the remaining part, viz. the contract in respect of the other two brothers. The part which is sought to be specifically enforcd thus stands on a separate and independent footing from the other part which ought not to be specifically performed, an assignment having been executed in respect of that part by respondent's brother Govindan. The case therefore comes under the exceptions provided in Sectionl2 of the Specific Relief Act. The finding of the court below that plaintiff is seeking to enforce a part of the contract is therefore erroneous and is hearby set aside. The point is answered in favour of the appellant.