Back
Madras High Court
RAMAMURTI
Subramani - Appellant
Versus
Kannappa Reddiar - Respondent
Decided On : 12/06/1972
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - PART OF CONTRACT - ABATEMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SECTIONS 12 (1) TO (4) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of the suit properties. The first defendant acted as guardian for his sister-in-law, the minor third defendant. When the plaintiff pressed the defendants to complete the transaction, the second defendant repudiated the agreement itself while on behalf of the third defendant, the objection was raised that the first defendant had no authority to represent her. On 17-10-1964, the second defendant sold to the fourth defendant her share in the properties covered by the agreement. On the same day, the guardian of the third defendant sold the third defendant's share to defendants 5 and 6 and the plaintiff instituted the present suit for specific performance on 13-11-1964.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a part of the contract with abatement of a proportionate purchase price. The Court found that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which corresponds to Sections 14 to 17 of the repealed Act, constitutes a complete Code in respect of a claim for specific performance of a part of a contract. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 12 (2) to (4) of the new Act would apply to cases in which the contract specifically enforced is a contract which has been entered into between the parties to the action and that these provisions would not apply to a contract which is entered into between the plaintiff on the one side and different parties on the other.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a part of the contract with abatement of a proportionate purchase price.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a part of the contract with abatement of a proportionate purchase price. The Court found that Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which corresponds to Sections 14 to 17 of the repealed Act, constitutes a complete Code in respect of a claim for specific performance of a part of a contract. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 12 (2) to (4) of the new Act would apply to cases in which the contract specifically enforced is a contract which has been entered into between the parties to the action and that these provisions would not apply to a contract which is entered into between the plaintiff on the one side and different parties on the other.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the second appeal with costs.
2. Several useless and untenable contentions were raised on the merits before the Courts below, like (a) denial of the execution of the agreement by the second defendant, (b) the plaintiff's waiver of his right and (c) the fourth defendant being an innocent purchaser without knowledge of the agreement of sale etc. and they were all found against and learned counsel for the appellant did not, rightly, question the correctness of those findings. He confined his arguments only to the question whether, on the facts and the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff would be entitled to specific performance of a part of a contract with abatement of a proportionate purchase price.
3. In India, the power and jurisdiction of the Court to grant specific performance of a part of a contract was limited and circumscribed by the provisions in Ss. 14 to 17 of the repealed Act of 1877. Under the new Act of 1963, those provisions have been amalgamated and are contained in Sec. 12, sub-sections (1) to (4) with some modifications. Section 12 of the present Act which has taken the place of Sections 14 to 17 of the repealed Act constitutes a complete Code in respect of a claim for specific performance of a part of a contract. In this respect, the law in India is not in complete consonance with the law in England as laid down by the English Courts. In a limited sense, when a Court decrees specific performance of a part of a contract, it virtually amounts to the Court making a new bargain for the contracting parties which they never would have made for themselves, and it is for this reason that it is only in special cases, subject to certain conditions, that a party can claim specific performance of a part of a contract, though the English Courts have exercised jurisdiction in a wider area of cases. So far as India is concerned, it is settled law and beyond question that the provisions of Sections 14 to 17 of the repealed Act are both positive and negative in their form, and taken together, they constitute a complete Code, within the terms of which relief by way of specific performance must be sought if it is to be granted at all and that even though assistance may be derived from a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
