Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted Against Defendant By Compelling Him To Enter Into Agreement With A Third Party: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party.

In this case, the specific performance of the Agreement in question comprised of two parts namely, (i) the defendant entering into an agreement with his brother's wife for the purchase of a land for providing access to the land agreed to be sold under the suit Agreement of Sale; and (ii) the defendant thereafter executing a sale deed conveying the property covered by the suit Agreement of Sale. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court. Though the Appellate Court reversed it, the High Court allowed the second appeal and upheld the Decree.

While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian noted that the High Court reversed the finding of the First Appellate Court on the question of limitation, without framing a substantial question of law and without even referring to the statutory provisions. Further, the High Court framed a question which was actually a question of fact which involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law, it said.

The court observed that the defendant's brother's wife was not a party to the suit agreement of sale, and thus the Court cannot compel her to enter into an agreement with the defendant. While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

In any case, the High Court ought to have seen that a Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. In other words, the specific performance of the agreement by the appellants herein, depended upon (i) the appellants entering into an agreement with a third party; and (ii) appellants being in a position to compel such third party to perform her obligations under such agreement...Since the defendant's brother's wife was not a party to the suit agreement of sale, the Court cannot compel her to enter into an agreement with the defendant. In other words, the performance of the first part of the obligation, which we have indicated in the preceding paragraph, cannot be compelled by the Court, as it depended upon the will of a third party.

Case details

Raman (D) vs R Natarajan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 760 | CA 6554 OF 2022 | 13 September 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Counsel: Adv G. Sivabalamurugan for appellant, Adv S. Nandakumar for respondent

Headnotes

Specific Relief Act, 1963 ; Section 12 - A Court cannot grant the relief of specific performance against a person compelling him to enter into an agreement with a third party and seek specific relief against such a third party. (Para 16)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment