LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT

CASE NAME

HELD

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

The Supreme Court of India held that when one party fails to perform its specific contractual obligations, the question of time being "of the essence" does not arise. A party cannot claim that time was of the essence in a contract when its own reciprocal obligations were not fulfilled.

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

The court denied the equitable relief of specific performance due to the plaintiffs' misconduct, upholding the principle that "a person who seeks equity must do equity".

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

The Supreme Court held that the power to order specific performance of a contract depends on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, as courts will not create a contract for the parties and an agreement must not suffer from any defect making it invalid or unenforceable.

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

The Indian Supreme Court confirmed that specific performance is an equitable and discretionary remedy. The judgment clarified that courts are not bound to grant this relief simply because a contract is valid, but must exercise their discretion based on sound judicial principles and fairness.

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

The Supreme Court of India held that relief of part performance cannot be granted under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the plaintiff's inability to perform the contract was due to their own conduct.

6.       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.

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

The Supreme Court held that under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, rectification of a written instrument is permissible when it fails to express the true intention of the parties due to fraud or a mutual mistake, and such a suit is maintainable if brought by a party to the instrument.

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

The Supreme Court of India held that merely casual or intermittent possession does not confer a "possessory title" over a property. To claim possessory title, a person must establish "settled possession".

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

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a suit seeking only a declaration of title, without the consequential relief of recovery of possession, is not maintainable if the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The court also highlighted that a plaint can be amended to include a claim for possession at any stage of the proceedings, including during a second appeal.

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

The Supreme Court of India clarified that an interim mandatory injunction can be granted in appropriate and exceptional cases to protect the rights and interests of parties. The court explained that while not an ordinary measure, this remedy can be used when there are compelling circumstances that justify its use.

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

The Supreme Court clarified that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted to restore the status quo ante, meaning the last non-contested state before the dispute, to preserve or restore the rights of parties during litigation until the final judgment.

12.   Thulasithara v. Narayanappa, (2019) 6 SCC 409

The Supreme Court held that in a suit for declaration of title, a defendant who was not a party to the disputed sale deed can still challenge its validity. The court clarified that such a defendant is not required to file a separate suit seeking the deed's cancellation.

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

The Supreme Court of India ruled that in a suit for a declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove their own title to the property and cannot rely on the defendant's weak claim. The Court further clarified that revenue records, such as khasras and khataunis, are not definitive proof of title but are simply statements for revenue purposes.

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

The Supreme Court of India reinforced the principle that anti-suit injunctions, particularly those against foreign court proceedings, should be granted only in rare and exceptional cases. The court emphasized a cautious and sparing approach, guided by the principles of equity and respect for the comity of foreign courts.

15.   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 actions in personam, meaning they are directed against specific individuals rather than the public at large, and are therefore arbitrable.

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

The Delhi High Court held that the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, fundamentally altered the law of specific relief, transforming specific performance from an exceptional, discretionary remedy to the general rule. The Court emphasized that this legislative change aimed to ensure greater contractual enforcement and uphold the sanctity of contracts.

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

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 is prospective in nature and does not apply to transactions that occurred before its effective date, October 1, 2018.