Specific Relief Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

As 2024 ends, LiveLaw presents a summary of significant Supreme Court judgments from the year related to the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Here are the key highlights:

1. Suit For Declaration Of Title Without Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Maintainable When Plaintiff Not In Possession: Supreme Court

Case Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117

The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, reiterated the well-established legal position that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.

The Court added that a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second appellate stage to seek a possession of the property. Since the plaintiff did not attempt to amend the plaint to seek the relief of recovery of possession. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal while deciding this point of law in favor of the Appellant.

2. Specific Performance Of Contract Can Be Refused If Suit Wasn't Filed Immediately After Breach Though Within Limitation Period : Supreme Court

Case Title: RAJESH KUMAR VERSUS ANAND KUMAR & ORS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407

The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and PK Mishra noted that the limitation period for filing a suit for the specific performance of a contract is three years, but clarified that every suit for the specific performance of the contract filed within the period of limitation cannot be decreed.

In this case, the Court refused to grant the discretionary relief of the specific performance of the suit to the appellant/plaintiff due to his conduct for not preferring the suit within a reasonable time despite knowing the fact of the breach of the contract well before the filing of the suit.

3. Specific Performance Suit Can't Be Decreed Based On Power Of Attorney Holder's Deposition About Plaintiff's Readiness & Willingness: Supreme Court

Case Title: RAJESH KUMAR VERSUS ANAND KUMAR & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407

In this case, the Court held that wherein the plaintiff is required to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, then the suit for specific performance of the contract cannot be decreed based on the deposition made by the plaintiff's power of attorney about the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform a contract.

If a plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, is required to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, it is necessary for him to step into the witness box and depose the said fact and subject himself to cross-examination on that issue. Having failed to step into the witness box to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract would result in rejection of the suit of specific performance due to non-fulfillment of the requisites of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra clarified.

4. Specific Performance Suit | Plaintiff Need Not Seek Cancellation Of Subsequent Sale Deed Executed With Prior Knowledge Of Agreement To Sell : Supreme Court

Case Details: MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. Versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 473

A bench of Justices AS Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that in a suit for specific performance filed against a vendor obligated to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation of a subsequent sale made by the vendor to a third party (subsequent transferee).

The Court held the subsequent purchasers cannot ask the plaintiff to plead for cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds and would be directed to execute the sale deed along with the original vendor in favor of the plaintiff.

5. Specific Relief Act | Supreme Court Reiterates Mandatory Requirement Of Direct And Specific Pleadings In Suit For Specific Performance

Case Title – P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 491

The Court reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract must provide direct, specific, and accurate pleadings that he is willing and ready to perform his obligations in the contract and such pleadings must be proved with evidence.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed a suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The Apex Court observed that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient pleadings and evidence to prove their case.

6. Specific Relief Act | Execution Court Can Entertain Application Under S.28 Provided It's The Court Which Passed The Decree In Terms Of S.37 CPC : Supreme Court

Case Title: ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS. Versus BHIM SINGH & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651

The Court held that the Executing Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act for the recession of a contract, provided that the Executing Court acted as a Court of First Instance which passed the decree. 

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing a case where a suit for the specific performance of a contract was filed against the Appellant and the Court of First Instance (trial court) directed the Appellant to execute a sale deed in favor of the respondent/decree holder upon payment of the balance consideration within two months from the date of the decree. Upon holding so, liberty was granted to the decree-holder to get the decree executable through the Court if the Appellant doesn't execute a sale deed.

The Court upon interpreting Section 28 of SRA observed that in the normal course, the application seeking rescission of contract or extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration lies in the original suit, however, the Executing Court is not precluded from deciding the application when it acted as a Court of First Instance while passing the decree.

7. Specific Relief Act | S.28 Application Can Be Filed In Trial Court Even If Decree Was Passed By Appellate Court : Supreme Court

Case Title – Ishwar (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs and Ors. v. Bhim Singh and Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651

Because the application under section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has to be filed as an application in the original suit, thus the Court held that an application Section 28(1) can be filed before the trial court even if the decree for specific performance was passed by the appellate Court.

8. Sec.31 Specific Relief Act | Not Mandatory For Third Party, Against Whom A Sale Deed Is Void, To Seek Its Cancellation : Supreme Court

Case Title: SK. GOLAM LALCHAND VERSUS NANDU LAL SHAW @ NAND LAL KESHRI @ NANDU LAL BAYES & ORS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 705

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Pankaj Mithal observed that as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”), it is not mandatory for a third party, against whom a sale deed is void, to seek its cancellation.

In essence, the court said that when a sale deed is executed between the parties, a third person who was not party to the sale and affected by the sale deed cannot be asked to file a separate application seeking cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of SRA.

9. Specific Relief Act | In Agreement To Sell Property Under Joint Ownership, Onus Is On Plaintiff To Secure Consent Of All Co-Owners : Supreme Court

Case Title: JANARDAN DAS & ORS. VERSUS DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 813

The Court observed that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement to sell a property (being jointly owned by multiple persons), then the onus is on the plaintiff to ensure that all necessary consents and participations are secured to prove his readiness and willingness towards the performance of the contract.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Prasanna B. Varale noted that the plaintiff's failure to contact the sisters, who are co-owners of a 3/5th share in the suit property, would not absolve him from his commitment to perform the contract under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

10. S.19(b) Specific Relief Act | To Claim 'Bona Fide Purchaser' Protection, Subsequent Purchaser Must Make Due Inquiries : Supreme Court

Case Title: MANJIT SINGH & ANR. VERSUS DARSHANA DEVI & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 919

The Court observed that a 'subsequent purchaser' of immovable property cannot claim the benefit of a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Act”) if they fail to exercise due diligence regarding the status of the current possessor of the property they intend to purchase.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that a subsequent purchaser who fails to conduct proper inquiries about the title and interest in the immovable property they intend to purchase cannot be deemed a 'bona fide' purchaser under Section 19(b) of the Act.

11. Plaintiff Seeking Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell Must Also Show Availability Of Funds : Supreme Court

Case Title: R. SHAMA NAIK VERSUS G. SRINIVASIAH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 947

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan observed that for the contract to be concluded, the plaintiff shall not only aver about his readiness and willingness to perform the contract but “is also obliged to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence to show the availability of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time.”

12. Specific Performance Decree For Agreement To Sell Can Be Executed Without Separate Relief For Possession : Supreme Court

Case Title: BIRMA DEVI & ORS. VERSUS SUBHASH & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976

The Court held that it would not be necessary for the decree-holder seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simpliciter to file a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”) for claiming possession of suit property.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan that when the transfer of property's possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed, then there's no need to separately claim relief of possession under Section 22 of the Act.

13. Suit For Specific Performace Of Agreement To Sell To Be Filed In Court Having Jurisdiction Over Property : Supreme Court

Case Title: ROHIT KOCHHAR Vs. VIPUL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD. & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 951

The  Court held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell must be instituted in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the property -which is the subject of the agreement- was situated as per Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan rejected the argument that a specific performance decree can be enforced by the personal obedience of the defendant and hence such a suit was maintainable at the place where the defendant resided/carried out business in terms of the proviso to Section 16 CPC.

14. S.20 Specific Relief Act | Defendant Can Raise Plea Of Hardship Only If It Was Unforeseeable At Contract Formation: Supreme Court

Case Title: PARSWANATH SAHA Versus BANDHANA MODAK (DAS) AND ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028

The Court observed that a defendant could raise the ground of 'hardship' in performing the contract only if it is established by cogent evidence that she was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ("SRA") would not apply if the defendant/seller failed to provide evidence showing that the hardship was unforeseeable when entering into the contract.

Other Supreme Court 2024 round-up stories can be read here.