Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Discretion in Granting Specific Performance - The courts exercise discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act when deciding whether to grant specific performance. Even if the legal criteria are met, the court may refuse if it deems it unjust, inequitable, or if delay or conduct of parties warrants denial. For example, the remedy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and the Court while granting relief for specific performance exercises discretionary jurisdiction ["ITTY PANICKER vs RAJAPPAN - Kerala"], and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so ["Parswanath Saha VS Bandhana Modak (Das) - Supreme Court"].
Conditions for Filing and Limitation Period - Suits for specific performance must be filed within prescribed limitation periods, typically three years from the date fixed for performance or when the plaintiff becomes aware of refusal. Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation of three years, for suits for specific performance ["Bheru Chandani S/o Late Moolchand Chandani VS Shivkumar Gupta S/o Baramdeen Gupta - Current Civil Cases"], and the limitation for filing the suit for specific performance is three years from the date fixed for the performance or when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused ["Bheru Chandani VS Shiv Kumar Gupta - Madhya Pradesh"]. Delay or failure to act promptly can bar relief.
Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff - A key requirement is that the plaintiff must show continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract until the decision. Continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff... is a condition precedent for grant of relief of specific performance ["P. Daivasigamani VS S. Sambandan - Supreme Court"], and the law insists a condition precedent to the grant of decree for specific performance that the plaintiff must show his continued readiness and willingness ["Chandan Tripathi v. Neelima Pandey - Chhattisgarh"].
Impact of Previous Suit and Conduct - Filing multiple suits or conduct such as delay, waiver, or acquiescence can bar the claim for specific performance. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel... the plaintiff had reserved his right to file a separate suit for specific performance ["UNITED PLUMBING AND SANITATION SDN BHD vs TAMAN RATU SDN BHD & ANOTHER CASE - High Court"], and merely because the period for specific performance has not expired, it is not possible to maintain two suits ["ITTY PANICKER vs RAJAPPAN - Kerala"].
Case Law and Judicial Precedents - Supreme Court decisions emphasize that specific performance is discretionary, and courts consider fairness, delay, conduct, and equities. The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance is not barred even if filed before the expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement [C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - Kerala](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500058630), and the court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses ["P. Daivasigamani VS S. Sambandan - Supreme Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The latest authoritative decisions reaffirm that specific performance is an equitable remedy exercised at the court’s discretion. The court considers factors such as timeliness, conduct of the parties, readiness and willingness, and equities involved. Even if the legal conditions are satisfied, courts may refuse relief if there are delays, conduct amounting to waiver, or unfairness. The limitation period of three years is crucial, and failure to act within this timeframe can bar the remedy. Ultimately, each case is decided on its merits, with courts balancing legal rights against equitable considerations ["Rosamma W/o Pulodh vs Raju Arakkal S/o Geroge Arakkal - Kerala"], ["Sheena Textiles Limited VS Arunkumar Radhakrushna Agrawal - Gujarat"].
In the realm of contract law, one of the most sought-after remedies is specific performance, where courts compel parties to fulfill their contractual obligations rather than merely awarding damages. But is this remedy granted automatically? A common question arises: What is the latest decision on specific performance? Recent judicial pronouncements clarify that specific performance remains an equitable remedy exercised at the court's discretion, guided by sound principles, even after statutory changes. This blog delves into the evolving law, key cases, and practical insights for litigants.
Note: This article provides general information based on recent decisions and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific situation.
The latest authoritative decisions affirm that specific performance is not a matter of right but a discretionary equitable remedy. Courts must consider the parties' conduct, statutory compliance, and overall circumstances before granting relief. Post-2018 amendments to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA), specific performance became a statutory right in certain cases, yet judicial discretion persists, particularly where prerequisites like the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are unmet. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29
As stated, The remedy of specific performance is discretionary but guided by judicial principles. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29 This underscores that relief is not automatic, even if lawful. Bharatbhai Parshotambhai Gohel VS Niravkumar Jitendrabhai Jethva - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 1256
Historically, Section 20 of the SRA empowered courts to exercise discretion judiciously. The Supreme Court has reiterated: The discretion must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily, and with regard to the conduct of parties and the circumstances of each case. Duni Chand VS Shyam Lal - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 722
Even today, courts emphasize: The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles. Bharatbhai Parshotambhai Gohel VS Niravkumar Jitendrabhai Jethva - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 1256G. Ramakrishnan VS L. Murugan - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4535
The 2018 amendments to Section 20 transformed specific performance into a statutory right, removing discretion in specified exceptions under Sections 11(2), 14, and 16. However, courts still scrutinize facts: Post-2018 amendments clarify that in certain cases, specific performance is a statutory right, but courts still exercise judicial discretion based on facts. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29
A cornerstone requirement under Section 16(c) SRA is the plaintiff's continuous readiness and willingness to perform essential contract terms. Failure here bars relief. Recent cases highlight:
Courts demand substantive averments, not mere pleadings. The requirement that the plaintiff prove continuous readiness and willingness... remains critical. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29 If unmet, as in cases of non-payment or ignored notices, relief is denied. K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2379
Time may or may not be of the essence, but delays alter equities. Time is of the essence of a contract if the parties have agreed that it is or if the circumstances of the case show that it is. K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2379
Plaintiffs must approach with clean hands:- Suppression of facts or inequitable conduct disentitles relief. G. Ramakrishnan VS L. Murugan - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4535- The first appellate court has not properly considered that the respondent / plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. G. Ramakrishnan VS L. Murugan - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4535
Conversely, proven payments and defendant's defaults favor grant: The plaintiff was deemed ready as payments were made despite the defendant's failure to fulfill their obligations. Fakira Rambhau Shewale Since deceased Through his legal heirs vs Vasant Narayan Rane Since, Deceased through his legal heirs - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1651
Key decisions reinforce these principles:
Exceptions include invalid contracts or frustration: Relief may be denied if the contract is invalid, unenforceable, or has been frustrated. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29NAJMUDIN I. BHARMAL VS CHAROTAR GRAMODDHAR SAHAKARI MANDALI LIMITED - 1995 0 Supreme(Guj) 426
Not everyone qualifies:- Assignees may be barred if contracts prohibit assignment: The very stipulation under Ex.A1 has specifically barred the second defendant... from assigning his right. Gladys Devavaram VS S. Subbiah - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 3004- Discretion avoids unfairness in changed circumstances, like value appreciation. Mahesh Chandra VS Avinash Kumar
To bolster chances:- Prove readiness rigorously: Document payments, notices, and compliance.- Act promptly: Delays invite denial or damages. Ramakrishna Pillai Prabhakaran Nair, (Died) vs Abdul Raof - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2672- Disclose fully: Clean hands are essential. G. Ramakrishnan VS L. Murugan - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4535- Courts may adjust terms equitably, e.g., current market-linked payments. Mahesh Chandra VS Avinash Kumar
The latest decisions, including those post-2018 amendments, affirm specific performance as a balanced equitable tool. While statutory rights expanded access, judicial discretion—anchored in readiness, conduct, and equity—remains vital. Litigants should prioritize statutory compliance and holistic case preparation.
Key Takeaways:- Discretion is guided, not arbitrary. C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29- Readiness/willingness is non-negotiable. Duni Chand VS Shyam Lal - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 494- Conduct and delays critically influence outcomes. Duni Chand VS Shyam Lal - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 722- Not automatic; courts weigh fairness.
Stay informed on contract enforcement—recent rulings evolve with societal changes. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
References:- C. Haridasan VS Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 29, Duni Chand VS Shyam Lal - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 722, Duni Chand VS Shyam Lal - 2020 0 Supreme(HP) 494, Mutyala Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao VS Reddy Rajasekhar, S/o. Ramakrishna - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 14, Ramakrishna Pillai Prabhakaran Nair, (Died) vs Abdul Raof - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2672, K. R. Sundararaj VS M. Nataraj - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2379, Fakira Rambhau Shewale Since deceased Through his legal heirs vs Vasant Narayan Rane Since, Deceased through his legal heirs - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1651, Mahesh Chandra VS Avinash Kumar, Bharatbhai Parshotambhai Gohel VS Niravkumar Jitendrabhai Jethva - 2018 Supreme(Guj) 1256, G. Ramakrishnan VS L. Murugan - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 4535, Gladys Devavaram VS S. Subbiah - 2011 Supreme(Mad) 3004
#SpecificPerformance, #ContractLawIndia, #LegalUpdate
Act but once his suit for specific performance stands dismissed, the protection available under Section 53A of the T.P. ... from that suit could have been filed latest by 07.09.2005 as per the requirement of Article 54 of the Limitation Act. ... It is well settled proposition of law that in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, it has to be proved that the plaintiffs, who are seeking a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale must alw....
in lieu of specific performance. ... performance since they have no legal right to specific performance in the first place, I am constrained by the doctrine of stare decisis to follow the said decision of the Court of Appeal and to similarly dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim herein for specific performance as well as ... have no legal right to the specific performance. ... [3] The Plaintiffs' claims are essentially ....
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act dealing with discretion as to decreeing specific performance states as follows: “20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance. ... The plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs.
![C.M. Divakaran [Died] S/o Madhavan vs K.S. Balan S/o Sreedharan - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 2716](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Kerala_1.png)
Discretion as to decreeing specific performance. ... This is a suit for specific performance. Exhibit A1 is the agreement for sale dated 23.12.2005. The period provided for specific performance is six months. ... Thereafter on 29.5.2007, the plaintiff filed two suits for specific performance. ... Thereafter, though as per Exhibit A7 notice, specific performance was demanded on 29.1.2010, the defendant failed to com....
performance in the earlier suit especially when the earlier suit was filed after the issuance of Lawyer’s notice demanding specific performance of the agreement for sale? ... Answering the question in the negative, the Court held that merely because the period for specific performance has not expired, it is not possible to maintain two suits, one for injunction and the other for performance of the contract. ... No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, t....
The specific performance is claimed of a written agreement of sale dated 2.7.1973 and as per the terms the performance of the contract was fixed till 2.12.1973. ... Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation of three years, for suits for specific performance. ... In the suits for specific performance falling in the second limb of the Article, period of three years is to be counted from the date when it had come to the notice of the plaintiff that....
or waived by the plaintiff), there is a bar to specific performance in his favour. ... Though the conduct of 2nd defendant is also a relevant factor in a suit for specific performance, this Court has already held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance in view of the personal bar under Section 16[c] of Specific Relief Act. ... when the 1st defendant, the real owner has not challenged the decree for specific ....
in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale. ... In the decision of Gaddipati Divija, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the legal principles settled in the decision of Chand Rani and held that when specific performance of the terms of the contract has not been done, the question ... of the decree for specific performance of contract is executed and registered and not vice versa. ....
The specific performance is claimed of a written agreement of sale dated 2.7.1973 and as per the terms the performance of the contract was fixed till 2.12.1973. ... Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the limitation of three years, for suits for specific performance. ... The said Article reads as under : Suit for Specific 3 Years The date fixed for the performance, Performance or, if no such date is fixed, when the plain....
In such a case, his specific performance of a decree of specific performance of contract could not be granted. ... 15. ... ... (c) Whether the suit for specific performance of contract based on contingent contract, happening of which itself is uncertain, is enforceable under the law ? ... (d) Whether the plaintiffs'' suit could not proceed until decision of the suit filed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 ? ... 10. ... The plaintiff has filed suit seeking decree of #HL_S....
For specific performance of a performance of a Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. Article 54, that figures in Part II of the First Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 for short “the Act of 1963”, reads as follows: Description of Suit Period of Limitation Period of Limitation 54.
38. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides as follows : “20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance : (1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal. (2) The following are cases in which the Court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance (a) where the terms of the con....
The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal." 5. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act,1963, reads as follows: Discretion as to decreeing specific performance: (1)
Who may obtain specific performance – Except as other wise provided by this Chapter, the specific performance of a contract may be obtained by - (b) the representative-in-interest or the principal, of any party thereto: Provided that where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a material ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest shall not be assigned, his representative in interest of his principal shall not be entitled to specific performance of the contract, unless such party has already performed his par....
Discretion as to decreeing specific performance: (1) The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, but the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. (2) ... (3) The relevant provisions under the said Section is extracted as under for ready reference: 20. The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where the plaintiff has done s....
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
