Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sardar Singh VS Krishna Devi...
Sardar Singh VS Krishna Devi - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 484 : The legal documents establish that courts of equity may order partial specific performance of a contract, even though historically it was held that courts would not enforce part of a contract. This limitation has no basis in principle, and it is now accepted that partial enforcement in specie is appropriate in diverse circumstances. Specifically, Section 12(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 allows specific performance of a part of a contract when that part stands on a separate and independent footing from another part that cannot or ought not to be specifically performed. In the case at hand, the house was divisible, and the appellant was not a consenting party to the contract, so equity and justice demanded partial enforcement of the contract for half the property. The court held that the decree for specific performance should be limited to the half share in the property, confirming the trial court''''s decree only to that extent. Thus, specific performance may be granted for a part of a contract if the part is independently enforceable and justice demands it.Checking relevance for Ramathal VS Maruthathal...
Ramathal VS Maruthathal - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 1695 : Specific performance is an equitable remedy that may be granted when the buyer is ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and the seller is stalling performance. Courts may grant specific performance even if property prices have escalated, as price escalation cannot be a ground for denying the relief. The buyer''''s readiness and willingness must be specifically pleaded and proved, and concurrent findings of fact by lower courts with cogent reasoning should not be interfered with by the High Court in second appeal. The discretion to grant specific performance must be exercised judicially and within settled legal principles.Checking relevance for K. Prakash VS B. R. Sampath Kumar...
K. Prakash VS B. R. Sampath Kumar - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 697 : Specific performance of a contract for sale of property is an equitable remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the court exercises discretionary jurisdiction in granting it, which must be exercised in accordance with sound and reasonable judicial principles. A plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continued readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract from the date of the agreement to the date of hearing. Subsequent rise in property price, even if significant (e.g., fivefold increase over ten years), is not considered a hardship that justifies refusal of specific performance, as it is a normal change of circumstances. However, the court may impose conditions to compensate the defendant, such as requiring the plaintiff to pay a higher consideration (e.g., Rs.25 Lakhs instead of the original Rs.16,10,000) to reflect current market value, with the defendant executing the registered sale deed upon such payment.Checking relevance for R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy...
R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy - 2024 8 Supreme 684 : Specific performance is an equitable remedy under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and lies within the discretion of the court. To grant specific performance, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a valid and concluded contract for sale/purchase of the property; (2) readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, both at the time of filing the suit and continuously up to the date of decree; (3) actual performance of their part of the contract, in conformity with its terms; (4) that it would be equitable to grant specific performance without causing undue hardship to the defendant; and (5) entitlement to alternative relief, such as refund of earnest money, if applicable. The court must consider the conduct of the plaintiff, financial capacity to pay the balance consideration, and whether the plaintiff has acted promptly after breach. The remedy is not automatically granted merely because a valid agreement exists, and the court may refuse it if the plaintiff''''s conduct does not inspire confidence, if there is financial incapacity, or if the plaintiff has delayed unreasonably in filing the suit.Checking relevance for Shenbagam VS KK Rathinavel...
Shenbagam VS KK Rathinavel - 2022 2 Supreme 415 : In a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property, the plaintiff must establish that they were ready and willing to perform the contract, and their conduct must be consistent with this readiness. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove this, and mere averments of willingness or belief that the other party would clear encumbrances are insufficient. Financial capacity alone is not proven by actions like payment of income tax. The court must also consider the conduct of the parties, escalation in property prices over time, and whether granting specific performance would cause injustice, especially if one party is not at fault. In this case, the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence of readiness or willingness to perform, and due to blemished conduct and the passage of three decades, the remedy of specific performance was declined.
