top of page

The Specific Relief Act (Landmark Judgement)

Updated: May 4


The Specific Relief Act (Landmark Judgement)
The Specific Relief Act (Landmark Judgement)

Gaddipati Divija & Anr v Pathuri Samrajyam & Ors. (2023)

When specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question of time being the essence does not arise -time would not be of essence in a contract wherein the obligations of one party are dependent on the fulfilment of obligations of another party.


Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs. (2024)

The exercise of discretion depends on several factors. One of the factors is the conduct of the plaintiff. The reason is that relief of a decree of specific performance is an equitable relief. A person who seeks equity must do equity.


Satish Kumar v. Karan Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 352

The Supreme Court emphasised that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of a contract hinges on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract.


Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2015) 1 SCC 705

The Supreme Court clarified that the remedy of specific performance of a contract is an equitable remedy.


Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, (2017) 12 SCC 810

The Supreme Court ruled that relief of part performance cannot be granted if the plaintiff's inability to perform arises from their own conduct.

 
 

Excel Dealcomm (P) Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd, (2015) 8 SCC 219

The Supreme Court held that the court cannot grant the relief of possession in a suit for specific performance unless specifically sought.


Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, (2013) 3 SCC 801

The Supreme Court held that rectification under Section 26 can only be done by the parties to the instrument and is applicable in cases of fraud or mutual mistake.


Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, (2019) 11 SCC 309

The Supreme Court ruled that mere casual possession does not confer possessory title over property.


VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. (2024)

The Supreme Court reiterated the well-established position of law 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.


In this regard, the Court also stressed that a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second appellate stage.


Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed, (2019) 14 SCC 1

The Supreme Court clarified that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted in appropriate cases to protect the rights of the parties.


Samir Narain Bhojwani v. Aurora Properties and Investments, (2018) 17 SCC 203

The Supreme Court explained that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted to preserve or restore the status quo until the final hearing.

 
 

Thulasithara v. Narayanappa, (2019) 6 SCC 409

The Supreme Court clarified that in a suit for declaration of title, the defendant can challenge the validity of the sale deed.


Jagdish Prasad Patel v. Shivnath, (2019) 6 SCC 82

The Supreme Court emphasised that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish their title.



Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, (2018) 17 SCC 12

The Supreme Court clarified the principles governing anti-suit injunctions, emphasising that they should not be granted routinely.


Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd v. Regency Mahavir Properties, 2020 SCC SC 655

The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act are specific to parties involved and do not affect all persons generally.


GLOBAL MUSIC JUNCTION PVT. LTD. v. SHATRUGHAN KUMAR AKA KHESARI LAL YADAV & ORS. (2023)

The Delhi High Court observed that the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, has changed the nature of specific relief from an equitable, discretionary remedy to a statutory remedy and has made specific performance of a contract a general rule rather than an exception.


Katta Sujatha Reddy vs Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force.

 
 


2 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page