Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. VERSUS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. Case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2022

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 13565 of 2021)

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 Of 2022

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19920 of 2021)

Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

Debbad Visweswara Rao (Dead, Through Lrs) & Ors …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5824 Of 2022

(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19286 of 2021)

Debbad Srinandhan Rao & Ors. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

State of Telangana & Ors. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave granted in all the matters.

C.A. NO. 5822 OF 2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 13565 OF

2021)

2. The present civil appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated

23.04.2021 in A.S. No. 998 of 2010, passed by the High Court for

the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

3. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who is the respondent herein,

had filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants, Smt.

Katta Sujatha Reddy and Smt. Kamireddy Geetha Reddy, who were

respondents 6 & 8 respectively, among others in the suit.

4. A conspectus of the facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals is

as follows: One late D Narayana, predecessorininterest of the

respondent no. 2 and 3, was the owner of an agricultural land

bearing Sy. No. 300309, admeasuring 141.05 acres, situated in

Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

Hyderabad. The appellants herein acquired certain extent of the

land from the aforesaid predecessorininterest through an

agreement dated 19.03.1994. In pursuance to this agreement, two

registered Joint GPA’S dated 28.03.1994 were executed in the name

of the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 from the abovementioned owners, for

an extent of Acs. 127.27 gts. of land.

5. The agreement dated 19.03.1994 and the registered GPA, in favour

of the respondent no. 1/purchaser (Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt.

Ltd.) could not materialize. Parties entered into two fresh

agreements dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 inter alia appellant

(hereinafter referred to as ‘vendors’) herein to purchase an extent of

Acs. 40.08 gts. The agreement dated 26.03.1997 pertained to Acs.

35.15 gts. land for a consideration of Rs.38,37,500/ while the

agreement dated 27.03.1997 pertained to Acs 1.33 gts of land for a

consideration of Rs.1,82,500/.

6. The total suit scheduled property thus consists of Acs. 40.08 gts of

land situated in Sy No. 301 (part), 302, 303, 304 (part) of Budvel

Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District for which a total

consideration of Rs.40,20,000/ was agreed upon between the

parties. Out of the total agreed consideration, Rs.34,80,850/ was

paid by the purchaser to the vendors by way of cash and cheques,

which fact is not disputed.

7. The remaining amount of Rs.5,39,150/ was to be paid within 3

months, as per clause 3 of the agreements. This amount had

admittedly not been paid within the stipulated time. On 31.03.2000,

the purchaser allegedly sent the first notice dated 08.02.2000 to the

vendors seeking specific performance of the agreement. Thereafter,

a second notice was sent by the plaintiff on 06.07.2002. The

purchaser, having no other alternative, filed the present suit, being

OS No. 88 of 2002, before the Additional District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance.

The trial Court framed 5 issues for consideration which are as

under:

1. Whether the purchaser is entitled for Specific

Performance of agreement dt. 27.3.1997 and

26.3.1997 directing the vendors to execute a

registered sale deed in favour of purchaser in

respect of suit land?

2. Whether the time is essence of the contract as

pleaded by the vendors, if so whether the

purchaser is not entitled for Specific

Performance of agreement of sale as pleaded

by him?

3. Whether the suit filed by the purchaser is

barred by limitation?

4. Whether the purchaser is entitled for

alternative reliefs of delivery of possession and

for refund of Rs. 34,80,850/ with interest

@36% per annum as pleaded in the plaint?

5. To what relief?

8. In response to issues (1) and (2), taking into consideration the

evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the purchaser

was never put in possession of the property. On the issue of

payment, it was held that the purchaser never made the total

payment of Rs. 34,70,000/ under the agreement of sale. It was

discovered during the course of cross and chief examination, that

the purchaser had issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/ which was

dishonoured. This information was not shared by the purchaser

and hence the purchaser had suppressed material evidence.

9. The trial Court further held that the burden of proof lies on the

person who pleads that time is the essence of the contract. It was

further observed that in respect of an immovable property, time is

not the essence of the contract unless the same is explicitly

mentioned in the agreement of sale and the parties through their

conduct have treated time as the essence of the contract. The lower

Court observed that Clause 3 in the contract stipulates a time bar

of 3 months for the payment of the sale consideration and

furnishing of necessary certificates by the purchaser and the vendor

respectively. The vendor through their conduct had never intended

to treat time as the essence of the contract. On delay of payments

made by the purchaser, the vendor never issued any notice to them.

This showed that the vendor never intended to treat time as the

essence of the contract. The vendor also painted a picture that it did

procure the necessary documents as required under clause 3 of the

contract, but it never did the same. The vendor made a false plea

about the duty to be performed by it under clause 3 of the contract.

10. The trial Court further held that while there exists a false plea on

the part of the vendor, the same however does not benefit the case

of the purchaser because there are grave laches on his part too. The

purchaser himself having approached the Court with unclean

hands, he cannot get the benefit of the false plea made by the

vendor.

11. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the purchaser was

never ready to pay the balance sale consideration, if so, he would

have either issued a notice to the vendor making out his willingness

to pay. Hence, on the basis of all the above mentioned observations,

it was held that the purchaser is not entitled for specific

performance of the agreements of sale and that the parties never

intended to treat time as an essence of the contract.

12. With regard to issue (3), the trial Court held that part one of Article

54 of the Limitation Act,1963 will come into operation, as per which

the threeyear period has to be computed from the date so

stipulated, which comes to on or before 27.06.2000, in the present

case. The current suit however was presented on 09.08.2002, after

a lapse of two years. Even for the recovery of the advance amount,

the suit was barred by time as provided under Article 47 of the

Limitation Act. When the main suit itself is barred, then alternative

relief also cannot be granted. Hence, the trial Court held that the

suit is barred by limitation. In the light of the above findings, the

trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not

entitled for the relief of specific performance.

13. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the

plaintiff/purchaser approached the High Court by way of a first

appeal, being A.S. No. 998/2010. The High Court framed 7 issues

for adjudication of the matter which are as under;

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the purchaser proved it’s possession over the

suit schedule property?

3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform

his part of the contract and paid balance sale

consideration within the stipulated time in the suit

agreements?

4. Whether the trial court is right in holding that the time

is not the essence of the contract and whether the

same can be attacked by the defendants without filing

cross objections?

5. Whether the trial court is right in not exercising its

discretion for granting relief of specific performance?

6. Whether Section 10 of the Act as substituted by Act 18

of 2018 is prospective or retrospective in nature?

7. To what relief?

14. In response to point (1), the High Court has held that Clause 3 of

the agreements did not stipulate time as the essence of the contract.

Moreover, the vendor has not exercised the option of forfeiting the

advance amount as per Clause 3 of the agreements. The High Court

further held that the trial Court has erred in making the distinction

between time fixed for payment of sale consideration and time for

performance of contract.

15. On point (2), the High Court held that the vendors surrendered

almost all their rights over the suit schedule property and allowed

the purchaser to exercise his rights over the suit property as per the

contract. It was wrongly held by the trial Court that since the name

of the purchaser was deleted in Exs. B10 & B11, the purchaser was

not in possession of the property. On the basis of this, the trial

Court also held that the purchaser did not approach the court with

clean hands. One more point that came in favour of the purchaser

was that one of the parties to the sale agreement had categorically

admitted that the purchaser was put in possession of the property.

This fact was never contested by any party. The High Court held

that just because the possession aspect is not mentioned in Exs.

A2, A3, A4, A5, A29 & A30 or in the first notice, it cannot be said

that the purchaser was not in possession of the suit schedule

property.

16. On point (3), the High Court observed that the vendors were at fault

for not obtaining the necessary certificates as per Clause 3 of the

contract for completing the sale transaction. Further, to show his

bonafides, the purchaser filed an application for permission to

deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,39,150/ and the

same was ordered and became final. The High Court further held

that no person would drag on the matter for this long for a payment

of 10% of total sale consideration. The purchaser was ready and

willing to perform his contract, had already paid 90% of the sale

consideration within the stipulated period and had deposited the

balance amount in Court. Hence, the purchaser was ready and

willing to perform his contract, and through his acts, proved his

bonafides.

17. On point (4), the High Court held that the trial Court had correctly

assessed the judgments and the fact situation and held that time is

not the essence of the contract in the present case.

18. On point (5), the High Court held that the trial Court should have

exercised its discretion and should have granted specific

performance in favour of the purchaser. It was held that the

vendors took a false plea in their written statements as well as in

their chief examinations stating that they did not receive the sale

consideration. The vendors further took the false plea that the

necessary documents and certificates as per clause 3 of the contract

were obtained from the concerned departments, and hence the said

point was answered in favour of the purchaser.

19. On point (6), the High Court held that when a provision is replaced

by way of substitution, the substituted legislation operates

retrospectively and not prospectively. It further held that specific

relief in essence is a part of the law of procedure, and hence it is a

retrospective law. The High Court then went on to state that an

appeal is a continuation of the suit, and hence any change in law

between the date of passing of the decree and the decision of the

appeal must be taken into consideration. Based on the above

analysis, the High Court held that Section 3 of the Amended Act is

retrospective in nature and applies to pending proceedings.

20. On point (7), the High Court held that since the purchaser

succeeded on all points, it partly allowed the appeal and directed

the vendors to register the suit property in favour of the purchaser,

to the extent of the amount paid by the purchaser, i.e., 90% of the

total sale consideration, within a period of 3 months. Further, it was

ordered that the sum of Rs.5,39,150/ deposited by the purchaser,

by virtue of the trial Court order dated 11.07.2005 in IA No.

925/2005, was to be refunded to the purchaser with interest, if any

accrued thereon.

21. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, both the vendors and the

purchaser are in appeal before this Court.

22. Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the purchaser, submitted as follows:

i. The High Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction

and the impugned judgment is based on both, oral and

documentary evidence. The reasons given for granting the

relief of specific performance are in accordance with the

settled principles of law.

ii. Both the trial Court and the High Court have

concurrently found that time is not the essence of the

contract. No time was fixed for the performance of the

contract itself. The period of 3 months stipulated under

Clause 3 of the agreements to sell, is only for payment of

the sale consideration. As a result, when no date is fixed

for the performance of the contract, the limitation period

commences from the date of specific refusal. In the case

at hand, specific refusal of the vendors to perform their

obligations had occurred on 14.04.2000 and 22.07.2002

and therefore, the suit was filed well within the limitation

period.

iii. The purchaser has clearly established that they were

always ready and willing to perform their part of the

contract. They have admittedly paid 90% of the sale

consideration within 3 months of the agreements to sell.

The purchaser also issued two legal notices dated

08.02.2000 and 06.07.2002 to the vendors indicating

their readiness to pay the balance amount. The vendors

avoided receiving the sale consideration despite the

purchaser’s repeated requests. Additionally, the vendors

did not procure the requisite permissions.

iv. Defendant No.5 has admitted in her pleadings that the

purchaser was put in possession of the suit property.

Such statement was neither challenged by the vendors in

the rejoinder and nor was it mentioned in the evidence

led by the DWs that her statement is incorrect. Moreover,

Defendant No.5 is a proper party to the suit.

v. The stand of the parties on possession cannot be a

ground on which the Court can refuse grant of specific

performance. Delivery of possession is ancillary to the

relief sought and such an issue would be

inconsequential.

vi. In the light of the amendment to Section 10 of the

Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction to grant specific

performance of a contract is no longer discretionary and

it is mandatory for Courts to grant such relief, unless the

case at hand falls within the statutorily carved out

exceptions.

23. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the vendors, submitted as follows:

i. The purchaser did not approach the Court with clean

hands. The balance amount was not paid within the

stipulated time period and the trial Court found the

purchaser’s statement regarding possession to be false

inter alia, for the following reasons:

(a)In the suit, there was an alternate prayer seeking

possession. If the purchaser was already in

possession, such a prayer would not have been made.

(b)The purchaser has not mentioned any specific date as

to when they were put in possession of the property.

(c)As per the draft sale deed prepared by the purchaser,

there is no mention of the fact that they had already

been granted possession of the property. In fact, the

draft sale deed indicates that the purchaser would be

put in possession on execution of the sale deed.

(d)PW2 (neighbour) deposed that the purchaser had laid

roads, constructed two rooms, put up fencing, etc. on

the property. However, the same is falsified by the

documents on record. The photographs of the property

show that there are no road or rooms on the property.

Additionally, no such pleading is made in the suit.

ii. The suit filed by the purchaser is barred by limitation

and the trial Court held so correctly. The parties executed

the agreements to sell on 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997

and the purchaser was to pay the balance amount within

3 months, i.e., by 27.06.1997. It is the purchaser’s case

that the vendors evaded execution of the sale deed as

early as in June 1997. Therefore, the limitation would

start running in June 1997 and expire in June 2000. The

suit, however, was filed only on 09.08.2002 and is,

therefore, clearly barred by limitation. The purchaser’s

oral evidence also shows that the right to sue accrued in

the year 1997 itself.

iii. Additionally, the notice purportedly dated 08.02.2000,

was actually despatched on 31.03.2000 and was

purposely backdated.

iv. The purchaser was not ready and willing to perform the

contract. The evidence on record indicates that the

purchaser not only failed to pay the balance

consideration within the stipulated 3 months, but also

failed to pay the same within a period of 3 years of the

agreement.

v. A suit for specific performance cannot be decreed in a

piecemeal manner. The High Court ought to have

accepted the trial Court’s decision and rejected the

purchaser’s appeal. Moreover, grant of specific relief only

to the extent of 90% itself indicates that the purchaser

was not ready and willing to perform the contract and

consequently, is not entitled to the decree.

vi. The High Court, while overturning the trial Court’s

judgement, stated that the discretion to grant specific

performance was taken away by the 2018 amendment to

Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act. However, both the

Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court have rightly

taken the view that the amendment, being substantive,

would be applicable prospectively. The impugned

judgement erroneously states that the amendment is

merely procedural and would apply retrospectively.

vii. The High Court has misconstrued Section 12 of the

Specific Relief Act. The section would not be applicable to

the present case as the question of ‘inability to perform a

contract’ does not arise.

viii. Reliance on Defendant No.5’s pleadings in support of the

plaintiff is misplaced. She has nothing to do with the

agreements in question and had filed a collusive written

statement. Moreover, knowing such a statement is

collusive, she never entered the witness box.

24. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing on either

side and perused the entire material available on record. In the

light of the arguments advanced, the following issues fall for

consideration.

A. Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by

limitation?

B. Whether the amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act

is prospective or retrospective in operation?

C. Whether the purchaser is entitled to the relief of specific

performance?

D. In any case, whether the purchaser is entitled to take

benefit of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act in view of

the part payment made in respect of the contract?

Issue A

25. Before dealing with issue “A”, we would like to highlight certain

facts which may be relevant. On 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997

two agreements to sell were executed between the vendors and

purchaser for two separate parcels of land in survey no.

301(part) , 302, 303, 304(part). The sale considerations for the

aforesaid land were Rs.38,37,500/ and Rs. 1,82,500/

respectively. Out of the above sale considerations, the vendors

received an advance of Rs.34,70,000/ and Rs.10,850/ in

furtherance of the performance of the aforesaid agreement.

26. A notice dated 08.02.2000 was despatched by the purchaser on

31.03.2000, calling upon the appellants herein to execute the

sale deed at a convenient date, suitable to the vendors herein.

27. The vendor replied to the aforesaid notice by letter dated

14.04.2000 by stating that the purchaser never offered to pay

the balance sale consideration and issuance of the notice dated

08.02.2000, was nothing but a subterfuge to get over the

limitation.

28. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the purchaser only on

09.08.2002. In the suit, the averments made by the purchaser

as to the limitation are as under:

“LIMITATION: The suit is within limitation in

continuation of efforts. Some defendants are agreeing

to execute the sale deed and some defendants are

continuing and evading the execution of the sale

deed. Time is not the essence of the contract. The suit

is within limitation in view of reply notice.”

29. The Defendant No.6vendors herein filed a written statement

dated 25.10.2002, wherein they replied to the question of

limitation as under:

“8 (Pg NO. 175) .It is submitted that, in reply to

Para no. 10 of the plaint that, the plaintiff has got

issued legal notice dated 8.02.2000 to the

defendant & the defendant no. 8 and posted the

said notice on 31.3.2000 under the registered

post, the said fact is revealed that, the Plaintiff

purposefully made the notice dated as 8.2.2000

which was posted on 31.03.2000 with ulterior

motive. The Plaintiff to cover up the limitation

period of 3 years creates the date 8.02.2000. It is

not true that, the defendant and the defendant no.

8 Smt. Kamreddy Geetha Reddy are not the joint

GPA holder of the vendors. It is false that, there

was no response from defendant no. 6 and

defendant no. 8 to the said notice, in fact the

defendant got issued a reply legal notice dated

14.04.2000 to the said alleged legal notice dated

8.2.2000. After receipt of the reply legal notice the

Plaintiff kept quiet for nearly 2 ½ years and got

issued another legal notice dated 6.7.2002. The

defendant had got issued reply legal notice on

22.7.2002 to the notice dated 6.7.2002 by stating

that the agreements are barred by limitation and

the plaintiff never in possession of the suit

property and moreover he has not performed his

part performance in paying the balance sale

consideration within the stipulated period and the

notice dated 8.02.2000 was posted on

31.02.2000 with malafide intention.”

30. In the above light, the first question that this Court needs to

consider pertains to the aspect of limitation. The First Schedule

to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the period of limitation in

the following manner:

DESCRIPTION OF SUIT PERIOD OF

LIMITATION

TIME FROM WHICH PERIOD

BEGINS TO RUN

54. For specific

performance of a

contract

Three years The Date fixed for the

performance, or, if no

such date is fixed, when

the plaintiff has notice

that performance is

refused.

The High Court, while dealing with the aspect of limitation, has

given a reasoning that Clause 3 of the agreements to sell did not

have a specific calendar date for performance of the contract,

but rather, provided only for payment of the entire sale

consideration within 3 months from the date of the agreements.

Further, the High Court construed the obligation of the vendors

to produce requisite certificates and permission as a condition

for the purchaser to complete the sale transaction. In view of the

same, the High Court concluded that the first part of Article 54

was incorrectly applied by the trial Court and accordingly held

that the suit was not barred by limitation.

31. At the outset, this Court has perused Clause 3 of the

agreements, which is in two parts. The first part provides for the

purchaser’s obligation, while the second part details the

obligation of the vendors to provide the requisite certificates.

Although both the obligations were required to be completed

within the stipulated period of three months, there is a

substantive difference between these two sets of obligations. The

obligation upon the vendors concerned was production of certain

certificates, such as income tax exemption certificate and

agriculture certificate. No consequences were spelt out for nonperformance of such obligations. Whereas the obligation on the

purchaser, was to make the complete payment of the sale

consideration within three months. The clause further mandates

forfeiture of the advance amount if the payment obligation is not

met within the time period stipulated therein. In this context,

this Court in Chand Rani (dead) by Lrs. v. Kamal Rani (dead)

by Lrs1

., held as under:

“25. From an analysis of the above case law it is

clear that in the case of sale of immovable

property there is no presumption as to time being

the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the

essence of the contract the Court may infer that it

is to be performed in a reasonable time if the

conditions are:

1. from the express terms of the contract;

2. from the nature of the property; and

3. from the surrounding circumstances, for

example: the object of making the contract.”

32. Coming to the aforesaid indicators, the language of the

agreements makes it clear that severe consequences of forfeiture

would ensue if the payment is not made within three months of

the date of the agreements. It may be noted that as per Clause 21,

the parties had entered into an earlier agreement to sell dated

1 (1993) 1 SCC 519

19.03.1994, which did not materialize and accordingly the agreed

price therein was no longer applicable. It is in this context that the

fresh agreements were entered into between the parties, so as to

provide a last opportunity for them to successfully enter into a

salepurchase agreement. The aforesaid intention of the parties is

also made clear through Clause 23 of the agreement to sell, which

reads as under:

“23. The parties of the second part herein

undertake on any pretext they will not make any

claim for enhancing the agreed sale

consideration.”

33. The aforesaid clause clearly freezes any enhancement of the

agreed sale consideration, which cannot be independent of a fixed

time period. A contrary interpretation would render the contract

commercially unreasonable and unworkable. The moratorium on

the enhancement of rates prescribed under Clause 23 should be

interpreted to be predicated on a fixed time and be executable

within a reasonable period. The same should not be utilized to

render the commercial wisdom between the parties otiose, which

is inherent in drafting such clauses.

34. From the above analysis, it is clear that the contract was

strictly conditioned on a time frame. At this stage, it may be

relevant to quote Section 55 of the Contract Act, which reads as

under:

“55. Effect of failure to perform at fixed

time, in contract in which time is essential

When a party to a contract promises to do a

certain thing at or before a specified time, or

certain things at or before specified times, and

fails to do any such thing at or before the

specified time, the contract, or so much of it as

has not been performed, becomes voidable at

the option of the promisee, if the intention of the

parties was that time should be of the essence

of the contract.”

35. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the vendors were entitled

to rescind the contract as there was a breach of condition, i.e,

‘time was the essence’. Coming back to the point of limitation,

it is clear that Article 54 of the Limitation Act mandates that in

this case at hand, the date fixed for payment of consideration

was three months from the date of the agreements (i.e.

26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997). In any case, the time period for

filing the suit had commenced from 26/27.6.1997 and would

have expired after three years, i.e., in the end of June 2000.

36. The purchaser has contended that the legal notice issued by

them on 31.03.2000, would be sufficient to get past the bar of

limitation, as the purchaser has paid the advance amount to a

large extent. Although this argument seems to be very

attractive at first blush, the same cannot be sustained in the

eyes of the law for the reason that when a condition of a

contract is breached and the consequences ensue for that

breach, a party cannot claim equity to escape such

consequences.

37. In this context, we may note that Article 54 of the Limitation

Act provides for two consequences based on the presence of

fixed time period of performance. It is only in a case where the

time period for performance is not fixed that the purchaser can

take recourse to the notices issued and the vendors’ reply

thereto. In the case at hand, the aforesaid circumstances do

not come into play as a fixed time period was clearly mandated

by Clause 3 read with Clause 23 of the agreements to sell, as

explained above.

38. In light of the above, we may note that the suit filed by the

purchaser was clearly barred by limitation in view of the first

part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and no amount of

payment of advance could have remedied such a breach of

condition.

39. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, there would not have

been any reason for this Court to continue the analysis on

merits. However, we feel that even on merits, the purchaser’s

case cannot be countenanced in law and we accordingly

adumbrate on the following aspects.

Issue B

40. At the outset, we may notice that this question assumes great

significance as application of the 2018 Amendment Act to the

present set of circumstances would determine whether specific

performance ought to be applied mandatorily or the aforesaid

decision is a discretion of the Court to examine whether equity

demands such application instead of granting damages if any.

41. We may note that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the second

legislation, replacing the earlier 1877 enactment of the Specific

Relief Act. The 1963 Act was enacted after consideration of the

Law Commission in its Ninth Report. The 1963 Act more or less

followed the English position on equitable remedy of specific

performance. In Common Law, the remedy of specific

performance was unknown in the initial days and courts only

granted damages for the value of goods if there was any breach

of contract. Accordingly English Courts, in the early years,

granted monetary relief. In order to rectify the harsh stance of

law, Courts of Equity in England started granting relief of

specific performance if the Court of Equity found that granting

damages would be inadequate or some special equitable rights

of the plaintiff under a trust have been breached.

42. In any case, grant of such relief, which emanated from equitable

principles, remained discretionary. This principle is clearly

explained by Swinfen Eady M.R., in Whiteley Limited v. Hilt2

in the following manner:

“The power vested in the Court to order the delivery

up of a particular chattel is discretionary, and ought

not to be exercised when the chattel is an ordinary

article of commerce and of no special value or

interest, and not alleged to be of any special value

to the plaintiff and where the damages would fully

compensate.”

2 (1918) 2 K.B. 808

43. However, this was not the position under the Civil Law. Under

the Civil Law of contracts, adherence to the sanctity of contract

is enforced with greater rigour by inversing the situation. The

reason for choice of damages and specific performance range

from legal to economic. It is in this context that the Courts

cannot engage on the merits of having damages or specific

performance or a hybrid. It is best left to the legislature to

choose the course bestsuited to the economy without

sheepishly following the typecast approach in England or Civil

Law systems.

44. The High Court, in the impugned order, has taken a different

approach in categorising the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as

procedural and holding that the 2018 amendment is also a

procedural provision which requires to be given retrospective

effect. The High Court places reliance on an old case of

Radheshyam Kamila v. Kiran Bala Dasi3

, wherein the High

Court, while relying upon the commentary of Pollock & Mulla on

Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act (4th edition)

specifically observed that “specific relief, as a form of judicial

3 AIR 1971 Cal 341

process, belongs to the law of procedure”. In this context, the

Court came to a conclusion that such procedural amendment

ought to be given retrospective effect.

45. We do not subscribe to the aforesaid reasoning provided by the

High Court for the simple reason that after the 2018

amendment, specific performance, which stood as a

discretionary remedy, is not codified as an enforceable right

which is not dependent anymore on equitable principles

expounded by judges, rather it is founded on satisfaction of the

requisite ingredients as provided under the Specific Relief Act.

For determination of whether a substituted law is procedural or

substantive, reference to the nature of the parent enactment

may not be material. Instead, it is the nature of the

amendments which determine whether they are in the realm of

procedural or substantive law.

46. The High Court’s reliance on Adhunik Steels Limited v.

Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) ltd.4

, was also misplaced.

In that case, the Court was concerned with the interpretation of

Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, that deals with granting of

4 (2007) 7 SCC 125

injunctions. The specific question before the Court was whether

the provisions of the CPC or the provisions of the Specific Relief

Act have a bearing on Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996.

47. While discussing the nature of the Specific Relief Act, in the

aforesaid case, this Court had observed as under:

“16. Injunction is a form of specific relief. It is an

order of a court requiring a party either to do a

specific act or acts or to refrain from doing a specific

act or acts either for a limited period or without limit

of time. In relation to a breach of contract, the proper

remedy against a defendant who acts in breach of

his obligations under a contract, is either damages

or specific relief. The two principal varieties of

specific relief are, decree of specific performance

and the injunction (See David Bean on Injunctions).

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 was intended to be “an

Act to define and amend the law relating to certain

kinds of specific reliefs”. Specific relief is relief in

specie. It is a remedy which aims at the exact

fulfilment of an obligation. According to Dr. Banerjee

in his Tagore Law Lectures on Specific Relief, the

remedy for the nonperformance of a duty are (1)

compensatory, (2) specific. In the former, the court

awards damages for breach of the obligation. In the

latter, it directs the party in default to do or forbear

from doing the very thing, which he is bound to do

or forbear from doing. The law of specific relief is

said to be, in its essence, a part of the law of

procedure, for, specific relief is a form of judicial

redress. Thus, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 purports

to define and amend the law relating to certain

kinds of specific reliefs obtainable in civil courts. It

does not deal with the remedies connected with

compensatory reliefs except as incidental and to a

limited extent. The right to relief of injunctions is

contained in Part III of the Specific Relief Act. Section

36 provides that preventive relief may be granted at

the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary

or perpetual. Section 38 indicates when perpetual

injunctions are granted and Section 39 indicates

when mandatory injunctions are granted. Section 40

provides that damages may be awarded either in

lieu of or in addition to injunctions. Section 41

provides for contingencies when an injunction

cannot be granted. Section 42 enables,

notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41,

particularly Clause (e) providing that no injunction

can be granted to prevent the breach of a contract

the performance of which would not be specifically

enforced, the granting of an injunction to perform a

negative covenant. Thus, the power to grant

injunctions by way of specific relief is covered by

the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”

However, the conclusion in the above paragraph, taken in

isolation, would not support the final outcome in the aforesaid

case, wherein it was held that an injunction order granted

under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would

involve consideration of settled principles under the Code of

Civil Procedure or the Specific Relief Act. It was nowhere stated

in the aforesaid case that the Specific Relief Act of 1963 stricto

sensu provided for only procedural mechanism. We find it

difficult to read the aforesaid case in the manner alluded to by

the High Court.

48. In any case, the amendment carried out in 2018 was enacted to

further bolster adherence to the sanctity of contracts. This

approach was radical and created new rights and obligations

which did not exist prior to such an amendment. Section 10,

after amendment, reads as under:

10. Specific performance in respect of

contracts.—The specific performance of a contract

shall be enforced by the court subject to the

provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 11,

section 14 and section 16.

49. This provision, which remained in the realm of the Courts’

discretion, was converted into a mandatory provision,

prescribing a power the Courts had to exercise when the

ingredients were fulfilled. This was a significant step in the

growth of commercial law as the sanctity of contracts was

reinforced with parties having to comply with contracts and

thereby reducing efficient breaches.

50. Under the preamended Specific Relief Act, one of the major

considerations for grant of specific performance was the

adequacy of damages under Section 14(1)(a). However, this

consideration has now been completely done away with, in order

to provide better compensation to the aggrieved party in the

form of specific performance.

51. Having come to the conclusion that the 2018 amendment was

not a mere procedural enactment, rather it had substantive

principles built into its working, this Court cannot hold that

such amendments would apply retrospectively.

52. In Shyam Sunder and others V. Ram Kumar and Another5

this Court held as under:

“28. From the aforesaid decisions the legal

position that emerges is that when a repeal of an

enactment is followed by a fresh legislation, such

legislation does not affect the substantive rights of

the parties on the date of the suit or adjudication of

the suit unless such a legislation is retrospective

and a court of appeal cannot take into

consideration a new law brought into existence

after the judgment appealed from has been

rendered because the rights of the parties in an

appeal are determined under the law in force on

the date of the suit. However, the position in law

would be different in the matters which relate to

procedural law but so far as substantive rights of

parties are concerned, they remain unaffected by

the amendment in the enactment. We are,

therefore, of the view that where a repeal of

5 (2001) 8 SCC 24

provisions of an enactment is followed by fresh

legislation by an amending Act, such legislation is

prospective in operation and does not affect

substantive or vested rights of the parties unless

made retrospective either expressly or by

necessary intendment. We are further of the view

that there is a presumption against the

retrospective operation of a statute and further a

statute is not to be construed to have a greater

retrospective operation than its language renders

necessary, but an amending Act which affects the

procedure is presumed to be retrospective, unless

the amending Act provides otherwise. We have

carefully looked into the new substituted Section

15 brought in the parent Act by the Amendment

Act, 1995 but do not find it either expressly or by

necessary implication retrospective in operation

which may affect the rights of the parties on the

date of adjudication of the suit and the same is

required to be taken into consideration by the

appellate court. In Shanti Devi v. Hukum Chand

[(1996) 5 SCC 768] this Court had occasion to

interpret the substituted Section 15 with which we

are concerned and held that on a plain reading of

Section 15, it is clear that it has been introduced

prospectively and there is no question of such

section affecting in any manner the judgment and

decree passed in the suit for preemption affirmed

by the High Court in the second appeal. We are

respectfully in agreement with the view expressed

in the said decision and hold that the substituted

Section 15 in the absence of anything in it to show

that it is retrospective, does not affect the right of

the parties which accrued to them on the date of

the suit or on the date of passing of the decree by

the court of first instance. We are also of the view

that the present appeals are unaffected by change

in law insofar it related to determination of the

substantive rights of the parties and the same are

required to be decided in the light of the law of pre34

emption as it existed on the date of passing of the

decree.”

53. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that when a substantive

law is brought about by amendment, there is no assumption

that the same ought to be given retrospective effect. Rather,

there is a requirement for the legislature to expressly clarify

whether the aforesaid amendments ought to be retrospective or

not.

54. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that ordinarily,

the effect of amendment by substitution would be that the

earlier provisions would be repealed, and amended provisions

would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date

of inception of that enactment. However, if the substituted

provisions contain any substantive provisions which create new

rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such

substitution cannot automatically be assumed to have come

into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature has to

expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be

construed retrospectively or not.

55. In the case at hand, the amendment act contemplates that the

said substituted provisions would come into force on such date

as the Central Government may appoint, by notification in the

Official Gazette, or different dates may be appointed for different

provisions of the Act. It may be noted that 01.10.2018 was the

appointed date on which the amended provisions would come

into effect.

56. In view of the above discussion, we do not have any hesitation

in holding that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is

prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took

place prior to its coming into force.

ISSUE C

57. From the above, it is clear that the 2018 Amendment Act is

prospective and cannot be applied to the present set of facts.

Under the earlier law, grant of specific performance was

discretionary. However, it was mandated that such discretion

ought to be used in a principled manner without leaving scope

for any arbitrary application. In Saradamani Kandappan v. S.

Rajalakshmi and other6

, this court held a under:

6 (2011) 12 SCC 18

42. Therefore there is an urgent need to revisit the

principle that time is not of the essence in contracts

relating to immovable properties and also explain

the current position of law with regard to contracts

relating to immovable property made after 1975, in

view of the changed circumstances arising from

inflation and steep increase in prices. We do not

propose to undertake that exercise in this case, nor

referring the matter to a larger Bench as we have

held on facts in this case that time is the essence of

the contract, even with reference to the principles in

Chand Rani [(1993) 1 SCC 519] and other cases.

Be that as it may.

43. Till the issue is considered in an appropriate

case, we can only reiterate what has been

suggested in K.S. Vidyanadam [(1997) 3 SCC 1]:

(i) The courts, while exercising discretion in suits

for specific performance, should bear in mind that

when the parties prescribe a time/period, for

taking certain steps or for completion of the

transaction, that must have some significance and

therefore time/period prescribed cannot be ignored.

(ii) The courts will apply greater scrutiny and

strictness when considering whether the purchaser

was “ready and willing” to perform his part of the

contract.

(iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be

decreed merely because it is filed within the period

of limitation by ignoring the timelimits stipulated in

the agreement. The courts will also “frown” upon

suits which are not filed immediately after the

breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three

years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for

1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific

performance. The threeyear period is intended to

assist the purchasers in special cases, as for

example, where the major part of the consideration

has been paid to the vendor and possession has

been delivered in partperformance, where equity

shifts in favour of the purchaser.”

58. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the purchaser ought to

have been vigilant in the case at hand to enforce his right and

could not have been lackadaisical in his approach. From the

facts, it is clear that the purchaser had entered into an

agreement way back on 26/27.03.1997, which had a clause

mandating completion of the contract by payment of the

remaining consideration within three months. The aforesaid

clause was drafted, as alluded to earlier, for providing one last

opportunity for the purchaser to make good their lapse which

had happened on the earlier occasion. In this context, the time

for performance of the contract including the payment lasted till

the month of June 1997.

59. It was necessary that the purchaser should have taken

immediate steps to complete the transaction and if such steps

were immediately completed then the purchaser would have a

clear right for seeking enforcement for 3 years reckoned from the

last date decided for completion of the contract.

60. The notice dated 08.02.2000, issued on behalf of the

purchaser implicitly acknowledges the fact that time was

considered as the essence even by the purchaser themselves and

due to breach of the same, they sought novation of the

agreement to sell in the following manner:

“However the due efforts by my client’s proved

little light hope when you have strongly urged my

clients to come up with the balance of sale

consideration in view of the fact that other

interested parties are not available at that

moment and you asked my clients to renew

their efforts by end of Jan’ 2000 and

thereafter you have promised to complete the

transaction by executing the sale deed in

favour of my client.”

(emphasis supplied)

61. Aforesaid notice, at best reflects an intention by the vendor to

renegotiate the terms, which was not accepted in toto by the

vendor.

62. The next aspect which this Court needs to consider is whether

the parties had requisite willingness and readiness to perform

the contract. The aforesaid requirement is one of the essential

ingredients under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

which reads as under:

16. Personal Bars to relief. Specific

Performance of a contract cannot be enforced in

favour of a person

…

performed or always been ready and willing to

perform the essential terms of the contract which

are to be performed by him, other than terms the

performance of which has been prevented or

waived by the defendant.

63. It is clear that in order to prove readiness and willingness, the

burden is on the purchaser to prove that they were always ready

and it is only the vendor who refused to perform the contract for

extraneous considerations. In order to support their averments,

the purchaser (Sunil Siddam Setty) entered into the witness box

and deposed as PW1.

64. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed as below:

“We have paid a sum Rs. 10,850/ towards

advance of sale consideration on 27.03.1997,

when one of the agreement of sale was executed.

It is true one cheque which was issued by us for a

sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ was bounced. When the

said fact was brought to our notice, we issued a

demand draft for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ within

10 of [sic.] 15 days and obtained a separate

receipt for that amount from Deft. No. 6 by name

Katta Sujatha Reddy. It is mentioned in the

agreement for sale dt. 26.03.1997 the transaction

has to be completed within three months. Witness

volunteers and says; the three month time was

stipulated with some conditions.

It is mentioned in another agreement of sale

dated 27.03.1997 that the sale transaction

has to be completed within three months

with some conditions.

…

Q. How many times you met the Defendant and

demanded for execution in the year 1997?

Ans. … We did not issue any notice to the

defendants in the year 1997 by demanding

them to receive the balance of sale

consideration and execute sale deed in our

favour.

It is not true to suggest that I was not ready and

willing to perform my part of contract and that I

never had balance of sale consideration and that I

did not demand the defendants within stipulated

period to receive the balance of sale consideration

and to execute the sale deed and that due to it, I

am not entitled to get the relief of specific

performance of agreement of sale as prayed in my

suit. …

I did not get issued any written notice to D5

prior to 06.07.2002. Witness volunteers and

says: that the entire transaction had taken

place in good faith and they never

anticipated court proceedings at that time.

(emphasis supplied)

65. From the above it is clear that the purchaser did not

voluntarily adhere to the time stipulation under the contract. In

order to bypass the condition of time being the essence, the

purchaser invoked the standard of good faith. Aforesaid standard

prescribes a higher duty of care for parties entering into a

contract. Unless such duty is expressly stipulated, good faith

standard cannot be implicitly read into any contract.

66. This Court does not subscribe to acceptance of a general

standard of good faith to imply broader good faith obligations

only to give a goby to the explicit conditions for maintaining the

sanctity of contract. Such broad standards will have potentially

far reaching consequences. This Court agrees that such an

implicit reading would come into play post the 2018 Amendment

to the Specific Relief Act which enables specific performance of

contracts to uphold their sanctity. However, from the facts and

circumstances of this case, we cannot accept that such higher

standards of good faith was relevant.

67. On the aspect of the vendor’s obligation to provide requisite

and necessary documents, DW1 (Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy), has

averred that all the documents were available. It is only after the

purchaser was satisfied about the sound title that he entered

into the agreement to sell.

68. In the light of the above, it is clear that Section 16(c) of the

Specific Relief Act would only come into force if the purchaser

was ready and willing to perform the contract within the three

month period prescribed under Clause 3 of the agreements. The

aforesaid conclusion is also bolstered by the fact that specific

performance can only be granted when essential terms of

contract are not violated in terms of Section 16(b).

69. From the above, we can safely conclude that the purchaser

was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within

the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot

be granted for the entire contract.

70. The last aspect which we need to consider in this matter is

whether possession was with the purchaser after entering into

agreements to sell in 1997. On this aspect, the High Court has

decided in favour of the purchaser by relying upon the evidence

of PW1 and the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities.

However, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not duly

considered the statement of PW1 in its proper perspective. PW1

during the course of crossexamination, has not specifically

pointed out as to when was the purchaser put into possession of

the property. PW1 has not further proved that there was any

development cost incurred by him for developing the aforesaid

land.

71. The claim of PW2 that the disputed land was developed by the

purchaser, is clearly unacceptable in the light of exhibits A22 to

A26 which are the photographs of the property that show that no

development had taken place, as averred by the purchaser.

Reliance on the revenue records concerning mutation may not be

of any significance when the question of possession is to be

decided solely on the facts as available on the records.

72. In this context, we do not propose to burden this judgment

with a detailed discussion of the testimonies of DW2 and DW3

which clearly go to show that the purchaser was never in

possession of the aforesaid land.

73. If the agreement of sale is coupled with possession, it requires

stamp duty and stamp duty has to be paid as per Schedule 1A of

Article 47A of the Stamp Act. Further, asking for the relief of

recovery of possession also shows that the plaintiff was not in

possession of the property. The trial Court has rightly answered

this point against the plaintiff and the Appellate Court, on an

erroneous appreciation of the facts and law, reversed the said

findings.

ISSUE D

74. The last aspect which has been argued before us concerns

application of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This

issue arises from the fact that the purchaser is said to have paid

90 percent of the sale consideration and in lieu thereof, the High

Court has held that the purchaser is entitled to ninety percent of

the scheduled land.

75. Although this argument appears to be attractive in the first

gloss, however a deeper examination of the same would paint a

contrary picture. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads

as under:

12. Specific performance of part of contract.

—

(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in

this section, the court shall not direct the specific

performance of a part of a contract.

(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to

perform the whole of his part of it, but the part

which must be left unperformed by only a small

proportion to the whole in value and admits of

compensation in money, the court may, at the suit

of either party, direct the specific performance of

so much of the contract as can be performed, and

award compensation in money for the deficiency.

(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to

perform the whole of his part of it, and the part

which must be left unperformed either—

(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though

admitting of compensation in money; or

(b) does not admit of compensation in money, he

is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific

performance; but the court may, at the suit of

other party, direct the party in default to perform

specifically so much of his part of the contract as

he can perform, if the other party—

(i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has

paid the agreed consideration for the whole of the

contract reduced by the consideration for the part

which must be left unperformed and a case falling

under clause (b), 1[pays or had paid] the

consideration for the whole of the contract without

any abatement; and

(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the

performance of the remaining part of the contract

and all right to compensation, either for the

deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by

him through the default of the defendant.

(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by

itself, can and ought to be specifically performed,

stands on a separate and independent footing

from another part of the same contract which

cannot or ought not to be specifically performed,

the court may direct specific performance of the

former part.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a

party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable

to perform the whole of his part of it if a portion of

its subject matter existing at the date of the

contract has ceased to exist at the time of its

performance.

76. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by this Court on

several occasions. In the case of Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurmeet

Singh7

, this Court held as under:

“20. Section 12(1) provides that specific

performance can be granted on part of a contract

only in the circumstances mentioned in the

section. Section 12(2) deals with breach the

contract if a party is unable to perform the whole

of its part and such part bears a small proportion

to the whole in value and admits compensation in

money. The expression “unable to perform” in

Section 12(2) for instance would mean that a part

of the property destroyed after contract or act of

God or an act by which it would cease to exist. In

such a case party to a contract shall be deemed to

be unable to perform the whole or its part of the

contract. Such a person would come within the

words “party in default”. The inability to

perform may arise by deficiency in quantity

of subjectmatter or deficiencies or some

legal prohibition or such other causes. None

of such causes is present in the instant case.

21. Section 12 of the Act does not apply

where the inability to perform specific

performance on part of contract arises

because of the plaintiff's own conduct as held

in Abdul Rahim v. Maidhar Gazi [Abdul Rahim v.

Maidhar Gazi, 1928 SCC OnLine Cal 20 : AIR

1928 Cal 584] . In Graham v. Krishna Chunder

Dey [Graham v. Krishna Chunder Dey, 1924 SCC

OnLine PC 63 : (192425) 52 IA 90 : AIR 1925 PC

45] it has been laid down that the Explanation in

the section exhaust all the circumstances in which

7 (2017) 12 SCC 810

partperformance can be granted. Section 12(2)

deals with the situation where a party is unable

to perform and such part is only a small

proportion in value and capable of compensation

in form of money. It was not a case covered in

Section 12(2) at all. Under Section 12(3) party

in default is entitled to specific performance

on payment of whole consideration or for the

part left unperformed but here in the instant

case the plaintiff being in default could not

be said to be entitled to invoke Section 12(3)

also.”

77. From the above, it is clear that there was no inability on part

of the parties to perform the rest of the contract or the remaining

part was waived. In this case, the purchaser breached the

essential condition of the contract, which altogether disentitles

him to claim specific performance. There is no doubt that the

claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as

they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated

time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years. In

this context, in Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala

Parvathamma8

, this Court held as under:

“8. A perusal of subsection (3) of Section 12

shows that the first part of the said provisions

mandates refusal of specific performance of a

contract on certain conditions. However, the latter

part of the provisions permits a court to direct the

8 (2001) 8 SCC 173

party in default to perform specifically so much of

his part of the contract as he can perform if the

other party pays or has paid the agreed

consideration for the whole of the contract and

relinquishes all claims to the performance of the

remaining part of the contract and all the rights to

compensation for the loss sustained by him. If a

suit is laid by the other party, the court may

direct the defaulting party to perform that

part of the contract which is performable on

satisfying two preconditions i.e. (i) the

plaintiff pays or has already paid the whole

of the consideration amount under the

agreement, and that (ii) the plaintiff

relinquishes all claims to the performance of

the other part of the contract which the

defaulting party is incapable to perform and

all rights to compensation for loss sustained

by him. Thus, the ingredients which would

attract specific performance of the part of the

contract, are: (i) if a party to an agreement is

unable to perform a part of the contract, he is to

be treated as defaulting party to that extent, and

(ii) the other party to an agreement must, in a suit

for such specific performance, either pay or has

paid the whole of the agreed amount, for that part

of the contract which is capable of being

performed by the defaulting party and also

relinquish his claim in respect of the other part of

the contract which the defaulting party is not

capable to perform and relinquishes the claim of

compensation in respect of loss sustained by him.

If such ingredients are satisfied, the

discretionary relief of specific performance

is ordinarily granted unless there is delay or

laches or any other disability on the part of

the other party.

(emphasis supplied)

78. Therefore, we do not think that it is an appropriate case for

granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the

Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred

by delay, laches and limitation.

79. We are of the firm opinion that the contract was breached due

to the conduct of the plaintiff/purchaser, who were not willing to

perform the contract after entering into a time sensitive

agreement. In any case, it is an admitted fact that plaintiff had

paid only part consideration. Though there is a forfeiture clause

in the agreement, this Court with a view of rendering complete

justice between the parties, deems it appropriate to direct the

vendors/appellants to repay the said amount with interest @

7.5% p.a. from the date such payment was made by the

purchaser to the vendors, till the entire amount is paid back. We

further direct the vendors to pay the entire amount to the credit

of the suit account within six months from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order.

80. The appeal is allowed on the above terms and the parties are

left to bear their own costs.

C.A. NO.5823/2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 19920/2021)

AND C.A. NO.5824/2022 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)

NO.19286/2021)

81. In light of the above judgment, the present appeals are

disposed of accordingly.

.............................CJI.

(N. V. RAMANA)

...…..........................J.

(KRISHNA MURARI)

..........…………….......J.

(HIMA KOHLI)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 25, 2022.

Search This Blog

Indian Constitution

Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. VERSUS Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. Case

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना