Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.28 seconds)Section 10 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
A.Kanthamani vs Nasreen Ahmed on 6 March, 2017
38. In our view, both grounds to decline the relief
of specific performance are not sustainable. Because,
while deciding issue A (supra), we have already held
that High Court erred in law by setting aside finding
of fact returned by the first appellate court that D-1
and D-2 were paid additional Rs.1,95,000, which they
acknowledged by making an endorsement on the back
of the agreement. In our view, acceptance of additional
money not only signified waiver of the right to forfeit
advance money /consideration but also acknowledged
subsistence of the agreement. Hence, High Court’s
conclusion that plaintiff had set up a false case of
additional payment is unsustainable and, therefore,
cannot be a ground to decline discretionary relief of
specific performance. Insofar as plaintiff’s case of him
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 26848-26849 of 2018 Page 36 of 39
being in possession of suit schedule property is
concerned, the same was not accepted on the ground
that there was no recital in the agreement regarding
handing over of possession. But that by itself would
not be sufficient to hold that the plaintiff made a false
claim of being in possession. A claim, if not proved,
does not make it false. A statement is false when its
maker knows the same is incorrect17. Otherwise also,
the plaintiff stands to gain nothing substantial by
claiming possession over the suit schedule property in
a suit for specific performance in as much as a decree
of specific performance would ultimately entitle him to
possession18.
Smt. Swarnam Ramachandran & Another vs Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan on 25 August, 2004
In our view, the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with
6
Swarnam Ramachandran (Smt.) and another v. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan, (2004) 8 SCC 689.
7
See: Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 26848-26849 of 2018 Page 20 of 39
the finding(s) of the first appellate court regarding (a)
payment of additional Rs.1,95,000 by plaintiff to D-1
and D-2 and (b) plaintiff being ready and willing to
perform its part under the contract. Issue A is decided
in the aforesaid terms.
Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008
25. A declaratory relief seeks to clear what is
doubtful, and which is necessary to make it clear. If
there is a doubt on the right of a plaintiff, and without
the doubt being cleared no further relief can be
granted, a declaratory relief becomes essential
because without such a declaration the consequential
relief may not be available to the plaintiff8. For
example, a doubt as to plaintiff’s title to a property
may arise because of existence of an instrument
relating to that property. If plaintiff is privy to that
instrument, Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963
enables him to institute a suit for cancellation of the
instrument which may be void or voidable qua him. If
plaintiff is not privy to the instrument, he may seek a
declaration that the same is void or does not affect his
rights. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for
setting aside the same is not necessary as the same is
non est in the eye of law, being a nullity. Therefore, in
such a case, if plaintiff is in possession of the property
8
See: Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.R.s. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 26848-26849 of 2018 Page 24 of 39
which is subject matter of such a void instrument, he
may seek a declaration that the instrument is not
binding on him. However, if he is not in possession,
he may sue for possession and the limitation period
applicable would be that as applicable under Article
65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on a suit for
possession9. Rationale of the aforesaid principle is
that a void instrument /transaction can be ignored by
a court while granting the main relief based on a
subsisting right. But, where the plaintiff’s right falls
under a cloud, then a declaration affirming the right
of the plaintiff may be necessary for grant of a
consequential relief. However, whether such a
declaration is required for the consequential relief
sought is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis,
dependent on its facts.
Prem Singh & Ors vs Birbal & Ors on 2 May, 2006
performance or by repudiation, or by both. In Anson’s
Law of Contract (29th Oxford Edn.), under the heading
9
See: Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353; followed in Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs v. Jagan
Devi and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1961
Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) Nos. 26848-26849 of 2018 Page 25 of 39
“Forms of Breach Which Justify Discharge”, it is stated
thus: