Relief Of Specific Performance U/S 20 SRA Is No Longer Discretionary After 2018 Amendment: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that the relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act is no longer discretionary, with notification of the 2018 Amendment Act.Whereas the unamended Section 20 stipulated that the specific relief "may" be granted at the discretion of the court, the amending Act substitutes Section 20 and renders the specific relief as...
The Gujarat High Court has held that the relief of specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs Act is no longer discretionary, with notification of the 2018 Amendment Act.
Whereas the unamended Section 20 stipulated that the specific relief "may" be granted at the discretion of the court, the amending Act substitutes Section 20 and renders the specific relief as regular statutory remedy.
In this light, the Court directed the Defendant/ Appellant to execute the agreement to sell. In doing so, the High Court concluded that there was no fraud or misrepresentation as alleged by the Defendant on the ground that he had a 'weak eye' and therefore, the Plaintiff was attempting to take advantage of him by insisting on physical possession of the suit premises.
"The decree of specific performance needs to be passed, in view of the amended section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Of course prior to the amendment of Section 20, the grant of relief of specific performance was discretionary one."
The Defendant was primarily claiming that the Appellate Court had not appreciated the medical report regarding the Defendant's disability properly and on account of his blindness, the Appellate Court should not have mandated specific performance of the contract, particularly since specific performance is discretionary. The Appellate Court had wrongly directed the Defendants to execute the sale deed, hand over the physical possession of the suit premises within 3 months and granted liberty to the Plaintiff to deposit the remaining sum.
Per contra, the Plaintiff had insisted that the Defendant was bank employee, having full knowledge of the contents of the document. He would not have signed the agreement if there was no intention of transaction between the parties.
Justice AP Thaker while relying on the K. Narendra V. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd judgement found that the Defendant had not pleaded hardship nor produced any evidence to show that the specific performance would be inequitable. The only allegations made pertained to fraud and misrepresentation which were not tenable since the Defendant had attended the Court without any aid. The High Court quoted from the K Narendra judgement thus:
"The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair advantage to the plaintiff over the defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the defendant…"
Further, the Court noted that written statement was filed way back in the year 1981, whereas the document was executed in the year 1979. It could not believe that the Defendant suffered from blindness at the time of execution. Further, the witnesses had seen the Defendant putting his signature on the agreement to sell.
Keeping in view these facts, the Bench affirmed the order of the First Appeal.
Case No.: C/SA/42/1990
Case Title: DHANSUKHLAL RAMBHAI PATEL & 1 other(s) v/s DHANSUKHLAL NAGINDAS KAPADIA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 357