Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.76 seconds)Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Gian Chand vs Gopala & Ors on 18 January, 1995
In Gian Chand (supra) the Court held the contract in
question to be based on uncertain future events besides being a case of
suppression of fact and in view of the notification being issued under
Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act the contract became impossible of
performance and thus was frustrated.
Govinda Naicken And Anr. vs Apathsahaya Iyer Alias Ayawaiyer on 5 January, 1912
In Govinda Naicken (supra) the
agreement to sell was executed by the Defendant alone who stated in the
document itself that the lands were being enjoyed in equal shares by the
Defendant and his divided elder brother and that they had been purchased
RFA No. 13/1975 Page 16 of 34
out of the money belonging to them severally. The Court observed that the
Plaintiff in the said case wanted the Court to compel the Defendant to
execute a deed of sale for the whole property and if he refuses, to issue one
in his name under the seal of the Court and to allow to make what he can
out of the title thus conveyed. The Court held such a request to be
inadmissible and observed that the defendant therein had nothing which
was capable of transferring in the moiety of the property of which he is not
the owner and is not in possession and it was impossible to sever the
execution of the deed from the transfer to be effected thereby and to treat
them as separate acts of the same person. Thus, the decisions relied upon
by the Appellant are of no avail in the facts of the present case.
Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati Madden vs Dr. C. L. Katiai, & Others on 25 March, 1963
In Mrs. Chandnee Widya Vati Madden, v. Dr. C.L.Katial and others, AIR
1964 SC 978 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:-
M/S Transcore vs Union Of India & Anr on 29 November, 2006
As is evident from the passage relied upon by the learned counsel for
the Appellants, the doctrine of election is applicable where the plaintiff opts
for two inconsistent claims. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transcore v.
Union of India and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 125 observed:
Surjit Kaur vs Naurata Singh & Anr on 13 September, 2000
At this stage it would be also appropriate to reproduce the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Kaur vs. Naurata Singh
and another, (2000) 7 SCC 379 relied upon by both the parties:
Hpa International vs Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani And ... on 13 July, 2004
In HPA International (supra) it was held that it was one integrated
and individual contract by the vendor to convey full interest in the property,
that is, his own life interest and reversionary interest of the remaindermen
with the sanction of the Court. As the Court did not grant the sanction the
contract cannot be specifically enforced. The lesser relief of transfer of life
interest was not claimed within a reasonable time after the vendor had
intimated that the contract as agreed for full interest was not possible.
Thus, it was held that neither equity nor law was in favour of the
Plaintiff/vendee. In the present case the vendor never communicated that
he cannot perform the entire contract and would agree to part performance
of the contract. Moreover, the vendee in the plaint filed, had in the
alternative prayed for part performance of the contract and thus, this
decision has no application to the facts of the present case.
Shanmughasundaram And Ors vs Diravia Nadar (D) By Lrs. And Anr on 11 March, 2005
Similarly, in Shanmughasundaram (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked by the
vendee to obtain sale deed of undivided share of the two brothers with a
right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the agreement
to sell. However, in the present case the shares of the parties are defined.
The portions of the property given in gift to his two sons were earmarked
RFA No. 13/1975 Page 28 of 34
and thus, this judgment also has no application to the facts of the present
case.