Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 14 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Another on 14 December, 1953
11. This decision was approved by the Supreme Court in Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar . In that case the trial Court had granted specific performance of a contract for lease to commence from 1st of April, 1948. The original contract for lease was for a period of 20 years, the lease to take effect from 1st April, 1934. The State of Bihar which had entered into the contract, was not in a position to grant the lease as originally contracted. The High Court reversed the decree of the lower Court, as in effect the agreement between the parties was reconstructed by the decree. At the time of hearing of the appeal before the High Court, relief under Section 15 was prayed for. But that was not granted in the view that the plaintiffs had not relinquished all further claims and were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and were asking for more than they were entitled to. The Supreme Court referring to the application of the plaintiffs in the appellate Court pointed out that there was no doubt whatever that the plaintiffs had offered to relinquish all claims to further performance and compensation and observed:
Baluswami Aiyar vs Lakshmana Aiyar And Three Ors. on 22 February, 1921
The question seriously considered in the High Court was as to the nature and extent of the relief the plaintiff was entitled to. After discussing the true scope of Sections 14 to 17 of the Specific Relief Act and following the decision of this Court in Baluswami Aiyar v. Lakshmnana Aiyar (1921) I.L.R. 44 Mad. 605,614 : (F.B.) 41 M.L.J. 129, it was held that the case fell under Section 15, and that the Court had no other course but to allow the appeal and set aside so much of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge as it directed payment only 1/3rd of the price. The High Court observed that if the plaintiff desired to have the first defendant's 1 /3rd share in the land in question conveyed to him, he must be prepared to pay the whole of the consideration less what had been paid already. It was pointed out that if on the other hand the plaintiff was content to get relief by way of compensation from defendant 1 for the undoubted breach of the contract, he would be entitled to obtain monetary compensation for the loss he had sustained. In the circumstances the Court granted time to the plaintiff to elect, observing:
Dwijendra Kumar Roy And Ors. vs Monmohan De And Ors. on 12 May, 1955
Reference was made therein to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyanpur Lime Works. v. State of Bihar , and that of the Calcutta High Court in Dwijendra Kumar v. Monmohan , The learned Judge distinguished Pramathanath Mitra v. Gosthabihari (1931) I.L.R. 59 Cal. 1085 (P.C.) : 62 M. L.J. 243, observing that the Privy Council did not consider the question about the stage at which the promise could relinquish his claim, and that the question had. been dealt with only in the two decisions above cited.
Dinanath Sarma Kataki vs Gour Nath Sarma Kataki And Ors. on 8 May, 1924
In Dinanath Sarma v. Gour Nath Sarma A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 434, plaintiff sued far specific performance on the footing that he was entitled to a 1/4 th share which belonged to the first defendant offering to pay a proportinate part of the consideration. The first Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the decision, the basis being that inasmuch as Section 15 applied to the case the plaintiff would only be entitled is a decree upon the footing that he accepted the 1/4th share of the first defendant in return for payment of whole of the consideration agreed upon and abandaned his claim to further performance and compensation. In second appeal it was contended for the plaintiff that it was not Section 15 but Section 16 that would apply. This contention was not accepted. It was noticed that the plaintiff, even in the lower Court, finding that the decree in his favour might be reversed, had offered to pay the full consideration in return for a conveyance of the 1/4th share belonging to the first defendant. The lower appellate Court had rejected the offer considering it as a belated one. The High Court in second appeal granted the plaintiff relief under Section 15, observing:
A.L. Parthasarathi Mudaliar vs Venkata Kondiah Chettiar on 25 June, 1964
This decision on Letters Patent Appeal confirmed that of Ramakrishnan, J., in Parthasarathi v. V. Kondiah , granting in appeal relief to the plaintiff under Section 15.. The agreement for sale of immovable property which was enforced in that case, was executed by the first defendant in that suit; but he had title only to item 1 and had no right to convey item 2 which belonged to his sister. The trial Court thought that it could apply Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act having regard to the relative value of the properties and directed a conveyance of item 1 only for a reduced consideration. On appeal by the defendant, Ramakrishnan, J., took, the view that inability to convey item 2 could not be considered to be a small and immaterial deficiency entitling the plaintiff to get a decree for specific performance subject to payment of compensation. This Court was of the view that Section 16 would not apply and Section 15 was more in point. During the hearing of the appeal, the plaintiff applied in this Court offering to take up conveyance of item 1 for the full contract price giving up his claim for compensation and further performance. The learned Judge granting relief under Section 15, observed at page 108;
Panchananda Kundu And Ors. vs Rajani Kanta Pal on 21 July, 1930
In Panchananda v. Rajani Kanta A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 463, 467, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contract against the first defendant in respect of his 1/3rd share of the land in question and not against the minor brothers of the first defendant. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that there was no concluded agreement for enforcement. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree for specific performance of the first defendant's 1/3rd share in return for the payment of 1/3rd purchase price.
1