2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3702

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, Sandesh D. Patil, JJ
Kanchan G. Rohira – Appellant
Versus
Nirman Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
APPEAL NO.171 OF 2010 | APPEAL NO.490 OF 2010

Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy. Under the Transfer of Property Act, the doctrine of constructive notice via registration is unavailable unless the party asserting it proves statutory compliance with both the registration process and the mandatory maintenance of public indexes.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Specific performance - Discretionary relief - Constructive notice - Jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful; discretion must be sound, reasonable, and guided by judicial principles. (Para 70)

(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Explanation I - Constructive notice - Benefit of the legal fiction regarding constructive notice in a registered transaction is conditional upon verification that the instrument has been registered and its registration completed in the manner prescribed, duly entered in the books kept under Section 51, and particulars correctly entered in the indexes under Section 55 of the Registration Act, 1908. (Para 63-64)

(C) Contract Law - Specific performance - Time as essence - In agreements for the sale of immovable property, time is not strictly the essence of the contract unless specifically provided; conduct of parties is a primary indicator of whether established timelines retain their mandate. (Para 21, 53)

Facts of the case:
The suit concerns a claim for specific performance regarding an agreement for the sale of residential property executed between the parties. During the pendency of the litigation, the subject property was transferred to subsequent purchasers. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the termination of the original agreement was illegal and demanded performance. The trial court denied the decree for specific performance but awarded alternative relief through damages and the refund of consideration, prompting appeals from both sides.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the subsequent purchaser was a transferee for value who acted in good faith. The court held that the discretion to refuse specific performance is justified when the defendant has been in continuous, long-term possession of the property. It further found that the plaintiff failed to establish constructive notice by failing to prove that all mandatory requirements—specifically indexing and registration record-keeping—under the relevant statutes were fulfilled.

Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff proved readiness and willingness, whether the subsequent purchaser was a bona fide transferee with notice, and whether the court appropriately exercised its discretion under the Specific Relief Act to award damages instead of specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act confers wide discretionary powers on courts to deny specific performance based on equitable considerations and hardship, particularly long-term possession by a third party. Additionally, the presumption of constructive notice via registration is not absolute; it is subject to the strict fulfilment of statutory indexing and filing requirements, which must be clearly established by the claimant if they wish to charge a subsequent purchaser with such notice.

Result: Appeals dismissed; decree confirmed.