Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5822 OF 2022
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 13565 of 2021)
Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Anr. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5823 Of 2022
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19920 of 2021)
Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Debbad Visweswara Rao (Dead, Through Lrs) & Ors …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5824 Of 2022
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 19286 of 2021)
Debbad Srinandhan Rao & Ors. …APPELLANT(S)
Signature Not Verified
VERSUS
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2022.08.25
18:51:48 IST
Reason:
State of Telangana & Ors. …RESPONDENTS
1
J U D G M E N T
RISHNA URARI
K M , J.
1. Leave granted in all the matters.
C.A. N O . 5822 OF 2022 ( ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) N O . 13565 OF
2021)
The present civil appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
2.
23.04.2021 in A.S. No. 998 of 2010, passed by the High Court for
the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
3. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who is the respondent herein,
had filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants, Smt.
Katta Sujatha Reddy and Smt. Kamireddy Geetha Reddy, who were
respondents 6 & 8 respectively, among others in the suit.
4. A conspectus of the facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals is
as follows: One late D Narayana, predecessorininterest of the
respondent no. 2 and 3, was the owner of an agricultural land
bearing Sy. No. 300309, admeasuring 141.05 acres, situated in
Budvel Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad. The appellants herein acquired certain extent of the
2
land from the aforesaid predecessorininterest through an
agreement dated 19.03.1994. In pursuance to this agreement, two
registered Joint GPA’S dated 28.03.1994 were executed in the name
of the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 from the abovementioned owners, for
an extent of Acs. 127.27 gts. of land.
5. The agreement dated 19.03.1994 and the registered GPA, in favour
of the respondent no. 1/ purchaser (Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt.
Ltd.) could not materialize. Parties entered into two fresh
agreements dated 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997 inter alia appellant
(hereinafter referred to as ‘ ’) herein to purchase an extent of
vendors
Acs. 40.08 gts. The agreement dated 26.03.1997 pertained to Acs.
35.15 gts. land for a consideration of Rs.38,37,500/ while the
agreement dated 27.03.1997 pertained to Acs 1.33 gts of land for a
consideration of Rs.1,82,500/.
6. The total suit scheduled property thus consists of Acs. 40.08 gts of
land situated in Sy No. 301 (part), 302, 303, 304 (part) of Budvel
Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District for which a total
consideration of Rs.40,20,000/ was agreed upon between the
parties. Out of the total agreed consideration, Rs.34,80,850/ was
3
paid by the purchaser to the vendors by way of cash and cheques,
which fact is not disputed.
The remaining amount of Rs.5,39,150/ was to be paid within 3
7.
months, as per clause 3 of the agreements. This amount had
admittedly not been paid within the stipulated time. On 31.03.2000,
the purchaser allegedly sent the first notice dated 08.02.2000 to the
vendors seeking specific performance of the agreement. Thereafter,
a second notice was sent by the plaintiff on 06.07.2002. T he
purchaser, having no other alternative, filed the present suit, being
OS No. 88 of 2002, before the Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance.
The trial Court framed 5 issues for consideration which are as
under:
1. Whether the purchaser is entitled for Specific
Performance of agreement dt. 27.3.1997 and
26.3.1997 directing the vendors to execute a
registered sale deed in favour of purchaser in
respect of suit land?
2. Whether the time is essence of the contract as
pleaded by the vendors, if so whether the
purchaser is not entitled for Specific
Performance of agreement of sale as pleaded
by him?
3. Whether the suit filed by the purchaser is
barred by limitation?
4
4. Whether the purchaser is entitled for
alternative reliefs of delivery of possession and
for refund of Rs. 34,80,850/ with interest
@36% per annum as pleaded in the plaint?
5. To what relief?
In response to issues (1) and (2), taking into consideration the
8.
evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the purchaser
was never put in possession of the property. On the issue of
payment, it was held that the purchaser never made the total
payment of Rs. 34,70,000/ under the agreement of sale. It was
discovered during the course of cross and chief examination, that
the purchaser had issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/ which was
dishonoured. This information was not shared by the purchaser
and hence the purchaser had suppressed material evidence.
9. The trial Court further held that the burden of proof lies on the
person who pleads that time is the essence of the contract. It was
further observed that in respect of an immovable property, time is
not the essence of the contract unless the same is explicitly
mentioned in the agreement of sale and the parties through their
conduct have treated time as the essence of the contract. The lower
Court observed that Clause 3 in the contract stipulates a time bar
of 3 months for the payment of the sale consideration and
5
furnishing of necessary certificates by the purchaser and the vendor
respectively. The vendor through their conduct had never intended
to treat time as the essence of the contract. On delay of payments
made by the purchaser, the vendor never issued any notice to them.
This showed that the vendor never intended to treat time as the
essence of the contract. The vendor also painted a picture that it did
procure the necessary documents as required under clause 3 of the
contract, but it never did the same. The vendor made a false plea
about the duty to be performed by it under clause 3 of the contract.
10. The trial Court further held that while there exists a false plea on
the part of the vendor, the same however does not benefit the case
of the purchaser because there are grave laches on his part too. The
purchaser himself having approached the Court with unclean
hands, he cannot get the benefit of the false plea made by the
vendor.
11. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the purchaser was
never ready to pay the balance sale consideration, if so, he would
have either issued a notice to the vendor making out his willingness
to pay. Hence, on the basis of all the above mentioned observations,
it was held that the purchaser is not entitled for specific
6
performance of the agreements of sale and that the parties never
intended to treat time as an essence of the contract.
12. With regard to issue (3), the trial Court held that part one of Article
54 of the Limitation Act,1963 will come into operation, as per which
the threeyear period has to be computed from the date so
stipulated, which comes to on or before 27.06.2000, in the present
case. The current suit however was presented on 09.08.2002, after
a lapse of two years. Even for the recovery of the advance amount,
the suit was barred by time as provided under Article 47 of the
Limitation Act. When the main suit itself is barred, then alternative
relief also cannot be granted. Hence, the trial Court held that the
suit is barred by limitation. In the light of the above findings, the
trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not
entitled for the relief of specific performance.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the
13.
plaintiff/purchaser approached the High Court by way of a first
appeal, being A.S. No. 998/2010. The High Court framed 7 issues
for adjudication of the matter which are as under;
1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
7
2. Whether the purchaser proved it’s possession over the
suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract and paid balance sale
consideration within the stipulated time in the suit
agreements?
4. Whether the trial court is right in holding that the time
is not the essence of the contract and whether the
same can be attacked by the defendants without filing
cross objections?
5. Whether the trial court is right in not exercising its
discretion for granting relief of specific performance?
6. Whether Section 10 of the Act as substituted by Act 18
of 2018 is prospective or retrospective in nature?
7. To what relief?
14. In response to point (1), the High Court has held that Clause 3 of
the agreements did not stipulate time as the essence of the contract.
Moreover, the vendor has not exercised the option of forfeiting the
advance amount as per Clause 3 of the agreements. The High Court
further held that the trial Court has erred in making the distinction
between time fixed for payment of sale consideration and time for
performance of contract.
On point (2), the High Court held that the vendors surrendered
15.
almost all their rights over the suit schedule property and allowed
the purchaser to exercise his rights over the suit property as per the
contract. It was wrongly held by the trial Court that since the name
of the purchaser was deleted in Exs. B10 & B11, the purchaser was
8
not in possession of the property. On the basis of this, the trial
Court also held that the purchaser did not approach the court with
clean hands. One more point that came in favour of the purchaser
was that one of the parties to the sale agreement had categorically
admitted that the purchaser was put in possession of the property.
This fact was never contested by any party. The High Court held
that just because the possession aspect is not mentioned in Exs.
A2, A3, A4, A5, A29 & A30 or in the first notice, it cannot be said
that the purchaser was not in possession of the suit schedule
property.
16. On point (3), the High Court observed that the vendors were at fault
for not obtaining the necessary certificates as per Clause 3 of the
contract for completing the sale transaction. Further, to show his
bonafides, the purchaser filed an application for permission to
deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,39,150/ and the
same was ordered and became final. The High Court further held
that no person would drag on the matter for this long for a payment
of 10% of total sale consideration. The purchaser was ready and
willing to perform his contract, had already paid 90% of the sale
consideration within the stipulated period and had deposited the
9
balance amount in Court. Hence, the purchaser was ready and
willing to perform his contract, and through his acts, proved his
bonafides .
17. On point (4), the High Court held that the trial Court had correctly
assessed the judgments and the fact situation and held that time is
not the essence of the contract in the present case.
On point (5), the High Court held that the trial Court should have
18.
exercised its discretion and should have granted specific
performance in favour of the purchaser. It was held that the
vendors took a false plea in their written statements as well as in
their chief examinations stating that they did not receive the sale
consideration. The vendors further took the false plea that the
necessary documents and certificates as per clause 3 of the contract
were obtained from the concerned departments, and hence the said
point was answered in favour of the purchaser.
19. On point (6), the High Court held that when a provision is replaced
by way of substitution, the substituted legislation operates
retrospectively and not prospectively. It further held that specific
relief in essence is a part of the law of procedure, and hence it is a
10
retrospective law. The High Court then went on to state that an
appeal is a continuation of the suit, and hence any change in law
between the date of passing of the decree and the decision of the
appeal must be taken into consideration. Based on the above
analysis, the High Court held that Section 3 of the Amended Act is
retrospective in nature and applies to pending proceedings.
On point (7), the High Court held that since the purchaser
20.
succeeded on all points, it partly allowed the appeal and directed
the vendors to register the suit property in favour of the purchaser,
to the extent of the amount paid by the purchaser, i.e., 90% of the
total sale consideration, within a period of 3 months. Further, it was
ordered that the sum of Rs.5,39,150/ deposited by the purchaser,
by virtue of the trial Court order dated 11.07.2005 in IA No.
925/2005, was to be refunded to the purchaser with interest, if any
accrued thereon.
21. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, both the vendors and the
purchaser are in appeal before this Court.
22. Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the purchaser, submitted as follows:
11
i. The High Court was correct in exercising its jurisdiction
and the impugned judgment is based on both, oral and
documentary evidence. The reasons given for granting the
relief of specific performance are in accordance with the
settled principles of law.
ii. Both the trial Court and the High Court have
concurrently found that time is not the essence of the
contract. No time was fixed for the performance of the
contract itself. The period of 3 months stipulated under
Clause 3 of the agreements to sell, is only for payment of
the sale consideration. As a result, when no date is fixed
for the performance of the contract, the limitation period
commences from the date of specific refusal. In the case
at hand, specific refusal of the vendors to perform their
obligations had occurred on 14.04.2000 and 22.07.2002
and therefore, the suit was filed well within the limitation
period.
iii. The purchaser has clearly established that they were
always ready and willing to perform their part of the
contract. They have admittedly paid 90% of the sale
consideration within 3 months of the agreements to sell.
12
The purchaser also issued two legal notices dated
08.02.2000 and 06.07.2002 to the vendors indicating
their readiness to pay the balance amount. The vendors
avoided receiving the sale consideration despite the
purchaser’s repeated requests. Additionally, the vendors
did not procure the requisite permissions.
iv. Defendant No.5 has admitted in her pleadings that the
purchaser was put in possession of the suit property.
Such statement was neither challenged by the vendors in
the rejoinder and nor was it mentioned in the evidence
led by the DWs that her statement is incorrect. Moreover,
Defendant No.5 is a proper party to the suit.
v. The stand of the parties on possession cannot be a
ground on which the Court can refuse grant of specific
performance. Delivery of possession is ancillary to the
relief sought and such an issue would be
inconsequential.
vi. In the light of the amendment to Section 10 of the
Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction to grant specific
performance of a contract is no longer discretionary and
it is mandatory for Courts to grant such relief, unless the
13
case at hand falls within the statutorily carved out
exceptions.
23. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the vendors, submitted as follows:
i. The purchaser did not approach the Court with clean
hands. The balance amount was not paid within the
stipulated time period and the trial Court found the
purchaser’s statement regarding possession to be false
inter alia, for the following reasons:
(a) In the suit, there was an alternate prayer seeking
possession. If the purchaser was already in
possession, such a prayer would not have been made.
(b)
The purchaser has not mentioned any specific date as
to when they were put in possession of the property.
(c) As per the draft sale deed prepared by the purchaser,
there is no mention of the fact that they had already
been granted possession of the property. In fact, the
draft sale deed indicates that the purchaser would be
put in possession on execution of the sale deed.
14
(d) PW2 (neighbour) deposed that the purchaser had laid
roads, constructed two rooms, put up fencing, etc. on
the property. However, the same is falsified by the
documents on record. The photographs of the property
show that there are no road or rooms on the property.
Additionally, no such pleading is made in the suit.
ii. The suit filed by the purchaser is barred by limitation
and the trial Court held so correctly. The parties executed
the agreements to sell on 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997
and the purchaser was to pay the balance amount within
3 months, i.e., by 27.06.1997. It is the purchaser’s case
that the vendors evaded execution of the sale deed as
early as in June 1997. Therefore, the limitation would
start running in June 1997 and expire in June 2000. The
suit, however, was filed only on 09.08.2002 and is,
therefore, clearly barred by limitation. The purchaser’s
oral evidence also shows that the right to sue accrued in
the year 1997 itself.
15
iii. Additionally, the notice purportedly dated 08.02.2000,
was actually despatched on 31.03.2000 and was
purposely backdated.
iv. The purchaser was not ready and willing to perform the
contract. The evidence on record indicates that the
purchaser not only failed to pay the balance
consideration within the stipulated 3 months, but also
failed to pay the same within a period of 3 years of the
agreement.
v. A suit for specific performance cannot be decreed in a
piecemeal manner. The High Court ought to have
accepted the trial Court’s decision and rejected the
purchaser’s appeal. Moreover, grant of specific relief only
to the extent of 90% itself indicates that the purchaser
was not ready and willing to perform the contract and
consequently, is not entitled to the decree.
vi. The High Court, while overturning the trial Court’s
judgement, stated that the discretion to grant specific
performance was taken away by the 2018 amendment to
Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act. However, both the
Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court have rightly
16
taken the view that the amendment, being substantive,
would be applicable prospectively. The impugned
judgement erroneously states that the amendment is
merely procedural and would apply retrospectively.
vii. The High Court has misconstrued Section 12 of the
Specific Relief Act. The section would not be applicable to
the present case as the question of ‘inability to perform a
contract’ does not arise.
viii. Reliance on Defendant No.5’s pleadings in support of the
plaintiff is misplaced. She has nothing to do with the
agreements in question and had filed a collusive written
statement. Moreover, knowing such a statement is
collusive, she never entered the witness box.
We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing on either
24.
side and perused the entire material available on record. In the
light of the arguments advanced, the following issues fall for
consideration.
A. Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by
limitation?
17
B. Whether the amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act
is prospective or retrospective in operation?
C. Whether the purchaser is entitled to the relief of specific
performance?
D. In any case, whether the purchaser is entitled to take
benefit of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act in view of
the part payment made in respect of the contract?
Issue A
25. Before dealing with issue “A”, we would like to highlight certain
facts which may be relevant. On 26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997
two agreements to sell were executed between the vendors and
purchaser for two separate parcels of land in survey no.
301(part) , 302, 303, 304(part). The sale considerations for the
aforesaid land were Rs.38,37,500/ and Rs. 1,82,500/
respectively. Out of the above sale considerations, the vendors
received an advance of Rs.34,70,000/ and Rs.10,850/ in
furtherance of the performance of the aforesaid agreement.
A notice dated 08.02.2000 was despatched by the purchaser on
26.
31.03.2000, calling upon the appellants herein to execute the
sale deed at a convenient date, suitable to the vendors herein.
18
27. The vendor replied to the aforesaid notice by letter dated
14.04.2000 by stating that the purchaser never offered to pay
the balance sale consideration and issuance of the notice dated
08.02.2000, was nothing but a subterfuge to get over the
limitation.
28. Thereafter, a suit was filed by the purchaser only on
09.08.2002. In the suit, the averments made by the purchaser
as to the limitation are as under:
“ The suit is within limitation in
LIMITATION:
continuation of efforts. Some defendants are agreeing
to execute the sale deed and some defendants are
continuing and evading the execution of the sale
deed. Time is not the essence of the contract. The suit
is within limitation in view of reply notice.”
29. The Defendant No.6vendors herein filed a written statement
dated 25.10.2002, wherein they replied to the question of
limitation as under:
“8 (Pg NO. 175) .It is submitted that, in reply to
Para no. 10 of the plaint that, the plaintiff has got
issued legal notice dated 8.02.2000 to the
defendant & the defendant no. 8 and posted the
said notice on 31.3.2000 under the registered
post, the said fact is revealed that, the Plaintiff
purposefully made the notice dated as 8.2.2000
19
which was posted on 31.03.2000 with ulterior
motive. The Plaintiff to cover up the limitation
period of 3 years creates the date 8.02.2000. It is
not true that, the defendant and the defendant no.
8 Smt. Kamreddy Geetha Reddy are not the joint
GPA holder of the vendors. It is false that, there
was no response from defendant no. 6 and
defendant no. 8 to the said notice, in fact the
defendant got issued a reply legal notice dated
14.04.2000 to the said alleged legal notice dated
8.2.2000. After receipt of the reply legal notice the
Plaintiff kept quiet for nearly 2 ½ years and got
issued another legal notice dated 6.7.2002. The
defendant had got issued reply legal notice on
22.7.2002 to the notice dated 6.7.2002 by stating
that the agreements are barred by limitation and
the plaintiff never in possession of the suit
property and moreover he has not performed his
part performance in paying the balance sale
consideration within the stipulated period and the
notice dated 8.02.2000 was posted on
31.02.2000 with malafide intention.”
30. In the above light, the first question that this Court needs to
consider pertains to the aspect of limitation. The First Schedule
to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the period of limitation in
the following manner:
| DESCRIPTION OF SUIT | PERIOD OF<br>LIMITATION | TIME FROM WHICH PERIOD<br>BEGINS TO RUN |
|---|---|---|
| 54. For specific<br>performance of a<br>contract | Three years | The Date fixed for the<br>performance, or, if no<br>such date is fixed, when<br>the plaintiff has notice<br>that performance is<br>refused. |
20
The High Court, while dealing with the aspect of limitation, has
given a reasoning that Clause 3 of the agreements to sell did not
have a specific calendar date for performance of the contract,
but rather, provided only for payment of the entire sale
consideration within 3 months from the date of the agreements.
Further, the High Court construed the obligation of the vendors
to produce requisite certificates and permission as a condition
for the purchaser to complete the sale transaction. In view of the
same, the High Court concluded that the first part of Article 54
was incorrectly applied by the trial Court and accordingly held
that the suit was not barred by limitation.
31. At the outset, this Court has perused Clause 3 of the
agreements, which is in two parts. The first part provides for the
purchaser’s obligation, while the second part details the
obligation of the vendors to provide the requisite certificates.
Although both the obligations were required to be completed
within the stipulated period of three months, there is a
substantive difference between these two sets of obligations. The
obligation upon the vendors concerned was production of certain
certificates, such as income tax exemption certificate and
21
agriculture certificate. No consequences were spelt out for non
performance of such obligations. Whereas the obligation on the
purchaser, was to make the complete payment of the sale
consideration within three months. The clause further mandates
forfeiture of the advance amount if the payment obligation is not
met within the time period stipulated therein. In this context,
this Court in Chand Rani (dead) by Lrs. v. Kamal Rani (dead)
1
held as under:
by Lrs .,
“ 25. From an analysis of the above case law it is
clear that in the case of sale of immovable
property there is no presumption as to time being
the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the
essence of the contract the Court may infer that it
is to be performed in a reasonable time if the
conditions are:
1. from the express terms of the contract;
2. from the nature of the property; and
3. from the surrounding circumstances, for
example: the object of making the contract.”
32. Coming to the aforesaid indicators, the language of the
agreements makes it clear that severe consequences of forfeiture
would ensue if the payment is not made within three months of
the date of the agreements. It may be noted that as per Clause 21,
the parties had entered into an earlier agreement to sell dated
1 (1993) 1 SCC 519
22
19.03.1994, which did not materialize and accordingly the agreed
price therein was no longer applicable. It is in this context that the
fresh agreements were entered into between the parties, so as to
provide a last opportunity for them to successfully enter into a
salepurchase agreement. The aforesaid intention of the parties is
also made clear through Clause 23 of the agreement to sell, which
reads as under:
“ 23. The parties of the second part herein
undertake on any pretext they will not make any
claim for enhancing the agreed sale
consideration.”
The aforesaid clause clearly freezes any enhancement of the
33.
agreed sale consideration, which cannot be independent of a fixed
time period. A contrary interpretation would render the contract
commercially unreasonable and unworkable. The moratorium on
the enhancement of rates prescribed under Clause 23 should be
interpreted to be predicated on a fixed time and be executable
within a reasonable period. The same should not be utilized to
render the commercial wisdom between the parties otiose, which
is inherent in drafting such clauses.
23
34. From the above analysis, it is clear that the contract was
strictly conditioned on a time frame. At this stage, it may be
relevant to quote Section 55 of the Contract Act, which reads as
under:
“55. Effect of failure to perform at fixed
time, in contract in which time is essential
When a party to a contract promises to do a
certain thing at or before a specified time, or
certain things at or before specified times, and
fails to do any such thing at or before the
specified time, the contract, or so much of it as
has not been performed, becomes voidable at
the option of the promisee, if the intention of the
parties was that time should be of the essence
of the contract.”
35. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the vendors were entitled
to rescind the contract as there was a breach of condition, i.e,
‘time was the essence’. Coming back to the point of limitation,
it is clear that Article 54 of the Limitation Act mandates that in
this case at hand, the date fixed for payment of consideration
was three months from the date of the agreements (i.e.
26.03.1997 and 27.03.1997). In any case, the time period for
filing the suit had commenced from 26/27.6.1997 and would
have expired after three years, i.e., in the end of June 2000.
24
36. The purchaser has contended that the legal notice issued by
them on 31.03.2000, would be sufficient to get past the bar of
limitation, as the purchaser has paid the advance amount to a
large extent. Although this argument seems to be very
attractive at first blush, the same cannot be sustained in the
eyes of the law for the reason that when a condition of a
contract is breached and the consequences ensue for that
breach, a party cannot claim equity to escape such
consequences.
37. In this context, we may note that Article 54 of the Limitation
Act provides for two consequences based on the presence of
fixed time period of performance. It is only in a case where the
time period for performance is not fixed that the purchaser can
take recourse to the notices issued and the vendors’ reply
thereto. In the case at hand, the aforesaid circumstances do
not come into play as a fixed time period was clearly mandated
by Clause 3 read with Clause 23 of the agreements to sell, as
explained above.
In light of the above, we may note that the suit filed by the
38.
purchaser was clearly barred by limitation in view of the first
25
part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act and no amount of
payment of advance could have remedied such a breach of
condition.
39. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, there would not have
been any reason for this Court to continue the analysis on
merits. However, we feel that even on merits, the purchaser’s
case cannot be countenanced in law and we accordingly
adumbrate on the following aspects.
Issue B
At the outset, we may notice that this question assumes great
40.
significance as application of the 2018 Amendment Act to the
present set of circumstances would determine whether specific
performance ought to be applied mandatorily or the aforesaid
decision is a discretion of the Court to examine whether equity
demands such application instead of granting damages if any.
41. We may note that the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the second
legislation, replacing the earlier 1877 enactment of the Specific
Relief Act. The 1963 Act was enacted after consideration of the
26
Law Commission in its Ninth Report. The 1963 Act more or less
followed the English position on equitable remedy of specific
performance. In Common Law, the remedy of specific
performance was unknown in the initial days and courts only
granted damages for the value of goods if there was any breach
of contract. Accordingly English Courts, in the early years,
granted monetary relief. In order to rectify the harsh stance of
law, Courts of Equity in England started granting relief of
specific performance if the Court of Equity found that granting
damages would be inadequate or some special equitable rights
of the plaintiff under a trust have been breached.
42. In any case, grant of such relief, which emanated from equitable
principles, remained discretionary. This principle is clearly
2
explained by Swinfen Eady M.R., in Whiteley Limited v. Hilt ,
in the following manner:
“The power vested in the Court to order the delivery
up of a particular chattel is discretionary, and ought
not to be exercised when the chattel is an ordinary
article of commerce and of no special value or
interest, and not alleged to be of any special value
to the plaintiff and where the damages would fully
compensate.”
2
(1918) 2 K.B. 808
27
43. However, this was not the position under the Civil Law. Under
the Civil Law of contracts, adherence to the sanctity of contract
is enforced with greater rigour by inversing the situation. The
reason for choice of damages and specific performance range
from legal to economic. It is in this context that the Courts
cannot engage on the merits of having damages or specific
performance or a hybrid. It is best left to the legislature to
choose the course bestsuited to the economy without
sheepishly following the typecast approach in England or Civil
Law systems.
44. The High Court, in the impugned order, has taken a different
approach in categorising the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as
procedural and holding that the 2018 amendment is also a
procedural provision which requires to be given retrospective
effect. The High Court places reliance on an old case of
3
, wherein the High
Radheshyam Kamila v. Kiran Bala Dasi
Court, while relying upon the commentary of Pollock & Mulla on
th
Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act (4 edition)
specifically observed that “specific relief, as a form of judicial
3
AIR 1971 Cal 341
28
process, belongs to the law of procedure”. In this context, the
Court came to a conclusion that such procedural amendment
ought to be given retrospective effect.
45. We do not subscribe to the aforesaid reasoning provided by the
High Court for the simple reason that after the 2018
amendment, specific performance, which stood as a
discretionary remedy, is not codified as an enforceable right
which is not dependent anymore on equitable principles
expounded by judges, rather it is founded on satisfaction of the
requisite ingredients as provided under the Specific Relief Act.
For determination of whether a substituted law is procedural or
substantive, reference to the nature of the parent enactment
may not be material. Instead, it is the nature of the
amendments which determine whether they are in the realm of
procedural or substantive law.
46. The High Court’s reliance on
Adhunik Steels Limited v.
4
Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) ltd. , was also misplaced.
In that case, the Court was concerned with the interpretation of
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, that deals with granting of
4
(2007) 7 SCC 125
29
injunctions. The specific question before the Court was whether
the provisions of the CPC or the provisions of the Specific Relief
Act have a bearing on Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
47. While discussing the nature of the Specific Relief Act, in the
aforesaid case, this Court had observed as under:
“16. Injunction is a form of specific relief. It is an
order of a court requiring a party either to do a
specific act or acts or to refrain from doing a specific
act or acts either for a limited period or without limit
of time. In relation to a breach of contract, the proper
remedy against a defendant who acts in breach of
his obligations under a contract, is either damages
or specific relief. The two principal varieties of
specific relief are, decree of specific performance
and the injunction (See David Bean on Injunctions).
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 was intended to be “an
Act to define and amend the law relating to certain
kinds of specific reliefs”. Specific relief is relief in
specie. It is a remedy which aims at the exact
fulfilment of an obligation. According to Dr. Banerjee
in his Tagore Law Lectures on Specific Relief, the
remedy for the nonperformance of a duty are (1)
compensatory, (2) specific. In the former, the court
awards damages for breach of the obligation. In the
latter, it directs the party in default to do or forbear
from doing the very thing, which he is bound to do
or forbear from doing. The law of specific relief is
said to be, in its essence, a part of the law of
procedure, for, specific relief is a form of judicial
redress. Thus, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 purports
to define and amend the law relating to certain
kinds of specific reliefs obtainable in civil courts. It
30
does not deal with the remedies connected with
compensatory reliefs except as incidental and to a
limited extent. The right to relief of injunctions is
contained in Part III of the Specific Relief Act. Section
36 provides that preventive relief may be granted at
the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary
or perpetual. Section 38 indicates when perpetual
injunctions are granted and Section 39 indicates
when mandatory injunctions are granted. Section 40
provides that damages may be awarded either in
lieu of or in addition to injunctions. Section 41
provides for contingencies when an injunction
cannot be granted. Section 42 enables,
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41,
particularly Clause (e) providing that no injunction
can be granted to prevent the breach of a contract
the performance of which would not be specifically
enforced, the granting of an injunction to perform a
negative covenant. Thus, the power to grant
injunctions by way of specific relief is covered by
the Specific Relief Act, 1963.”
However, the conclusion in the above paragraph, taken in
isolation, would not support the final outcome in the aforesaid
case, wherein it was held that an injunction order granted
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would
involve consideration of settled principles under the Code of
Civil Procedure or the Specific Relief Act. It was nowhere stated
in the aforesaid case that the Specific Relief Act of 1963 stricto
sensu provided for only procedural mechanism. We find it
31
difficult to read the aforesaid case in the manner alluded to by
the High Court.
48. In any case, the amendment carried out in 2018 was enacted to
further bolster adherence to the sanctity of contracts. This
approach was radical and created new rights and obligations
which did not exist prior to such an amendment. Section 10,
after amendment, reads as under:
10. Specific performance in respect of
.—The specific performance of a contract
contracts
shall be enforced by the court subject to the
provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 11,
section 14 and section 16.
49. This provision, which remained in the realm of the Courts’
discretion, was converted into a mandatory provision,
prescribing a power the Courts had to exercise when the
ingredients were fulfilled. This was a significant step in the
growth of commercial law as the sanctity of contracts was
reinforced with parties having to comply with contracts and
thereby reducing efficient breaches.
50. Under the preamended Specific Relief Act, one of the major
considerations for grant of specific performance was the
32
adequacy of damages under Section 14(1)(a). However, this
consideration has now been completely done away with, in order
to provide better compensation to the aggrieved party in the
form of specific performance.
51. Having come to the conclusion that the 2018 amendment was
not a mere procedural enactment, rather it had substantive
principles built into its working, this Court cannot hold that
such amendments would apply retrospectively.
5
In ,
52. Shyam Sunder and others V. Ram Kumar and Another
this Court held as under:
“28. From the aforesaid decisions the legal
position that emerges is that when a repeal of an
enactment is followed by a fresh legislation, such
legislation does not affect the substantive rights of
the parties on the date of the suit or adjudication of
the suit unless such a legislation is retrospective
and a court of appeal cannot take into
consideration a new law brought into existence
after the judgment appealed from has been
rendered because the rights of the parties in an
appeal are determined under the law in force on
the date of the suit. However, the position in law
would be different in the matters which relate to
procedural law but so far as substantive rights of
parties are concerned, they remain unaffected by
the amendment in the enactment. We are,
therefore, of the view that where a repeal of
5
(2001) 8 SCC 24
33
provisions of an enactment is followed by fresh
legislation by an amending Act, such legislation is
prospective in operation and does not affect
substantive or vested rights of the parties unless
made retrospective either expressly or by
necessary intendment. We are further of the view
that there is a presumption against the
retrospective operation of a statute and further a
statute is not to be construed to have a greater
retrospective operation than its language renders
necessary, but an amending Act which affects the
procedure is presumed to be retrospective, unless
the amending Act provides otherwise. We have
carefully looked into the new substituted Section
15 brought in the parent Act by the Amendment
Act, 1995 but do not find it either expressly or by
necessary implication retrospective in operation
which may affect the rights of the parties on the
date of adjudication of the suit and the same is
required to be taken into consideration by the
appellate court. In Shanti Devi v. Hukum Chand
[(1996) 5 SCC 768] this Court had occasion to
interpret the substituted Section 15 with which we
are concerned and held that on a plain reading of
Section 15, it is clear that it has been introduced
prospectively and there is no question of such
section affecting in any manner the judgment and
decree passed in the suit for preemption affirmed
by the High Court in the second appeal. We are
respectfully in agreement with the view expressed
in the said decision and hold that the substituted
Section 15 in the absence of anything in it to show
that it is retrospective, does not affect the right of
the parties which accrued to them on the date of
the suit or on the date of passing of the decree by
the court of first instance. We are also of the view
that the present appeals are unaffected by change
in law insofar it related to determination of the
substantive rights of the parties and the same are
required to be decided in the light of the law of pre
34
emption as it existed on the date of passing of the
decree.”
53. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that when a substantive
law is brought about by amendment, there is no assumption
that the same ought to be given retrospective effect. Rather,
there is a requirement for the legislature to expressly clarify
whether the aforesaid amendments ought to be retrospective or
not.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that ordinarily,
54.
the effect of amendment by substitution would be that the
earlier provisions would be repealed, and amended provisions
would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date
of inception of that enactment. However, if the substituted
provisions contain any substantive provisions which create new
rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such
substitution cannot automatically be assumed to have come
into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature has to
expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be
construed retrospectively or not.
35
55. In the case at hand, the amendment act contemplates that the
said substituted provisions would come into force on such date
as the Central Government may appoint, by notification in the
Official Gazette, or different dates may be appointed for different
provisions of the Act. It may be noted that 01.10.2018 was the
appointed date on which the amended provisions would come
into effect.
56. In view of the above discussion, we do not have any hesitation
in holding that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is
prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took
place prior to its coming into force.
SSUE
I C
57. From the above, it is clear that the 2018 Amendment Act is
prospective and cannot be applied to the present set of facts.
Under the earlier law, grant of specific performance was
discretionary. However, it was mandated that such discretion
ought to be used in a principled manner without leaving scope
for any arbitrary application. In Saradamani Kandappan v. S.
6
this court held a under:
Rajalakshmi and other ,
6
(2011) 12 SCC 18
36
42. Therefore there is an urgent need to revisit the
principle that time is not of the essence in contracts
relating to immovable properties and also explain
the current position of law with regard to contracts
relating to immovable property made after 1975, in
view of the changed circumstances arising from
inflation and steep increase in prices. We do not
propose to undertake that exercise in this case, nor
referring the matter to a larger Bench as we have
held on facts in this case that time is the essence of
the contract, even with reference to the principles in
Chand Rani [(1993) 1 SCC 519] and other cases.
Be that as it may.
43. Till the issue is considered in an appropriate
case, we can only reiterate what has been
suggested in K.S. Vidyanadam [(1997) 3 SCC 1]:
(i) The courts, while exercising discretion in suits
for specific performance, should bear in mind that
when the parties prescribe a time/period, for
taking certain steps or for completion of the
transaction, that must have some significance and
therefore time/period prescribed cannot be ignored.
(ii) The courts will apply greater scrutiny and
strictness when considering whether the purchaser
was “ready and willing” to perform his part of the
contract.
(iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be
decreed merely because it is filed within the period
of limitation by ignoring the timelimits stipulated in
the agreement. The courts will also “frown” upon
suits which are not filed immediately after the
breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three
years does not mean that a purchaser can wait for
1 or 2 years to file a suit and obtain specific
performance. The threeyear period is intended to
assist the purchasers in special cases, as for
37
example, where the major part of the consideration
has been paid to the vendor and possession has
been delivered in partperformance, where equity
shifts in favour of the purchaser.”
58. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the purchaser ought to
have been vigilant in the case at hand to enforce his right and
could not have been lackadaisical in his approach. From the
facts, it is clear that the purchaser had entered into an
agreement way back on 26/27.03.1997, which had a clause
mandating completion of the contract by payment of the
remaining consideration within three months. The aforesaid
clause was drafted, as alluded to earlier, for providing one last
opportunity for the purchaser to make good their lapse which
had happened on the earlier occasion. In this context, the time
for performance of the contract including the payment lasted till
the month of June 1997.
59. It was necessary that the purchaser should have taken
immediate steps to complete the transaction and if such steps
were immediately completed then the purchaser would have a
clear right for seeking enforcement for 3 years reckoned from the
last date decided for completion of the contract.
38
60. The notice dated 08.02.2000, issued on behalf of the
purchaser implicitly acknowledges the fact that time was
considered as the essence even by the purchaser themselves and
due to breach of the same, they sought novation of the
agreement to sell in the following manner:
“However the due efforts by my client’s proved
little light hope when you have strongly urged my
clients to come up with the balance of sale
consideration in view of the fact that other
interested parties are not available at that
moment
and you asked my clients to renew
their efforts by end of Jan’ 2000 and
thereafter you have promised to complete the
transaction by executing the sale deed in
favour of my client .”
( emphasis supplied )
61. Aforesaid notice, at best reflects an intention by the vendor to
renegotiate the terms, which was not accepted in toto by the
vendor.
62. The next aspect which this Court needs to consider is whether
the parties had requisite willingness and readiness to perform
the contract. The aforesaid requirement is one of the essential
ingredients under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
which reads as under:
39
16. Personal Bars to relief. Specific
Performance of a contract cannot be enforced in
favour of a person
…
(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has
performed or always been ready and willing to
perform the essential terms of the contract which
are to be performed by him, other than terms the
performance of which has been prevented or
waived by the defendant.
It is clear that in order to prove readiness and willingness, the
63.
burden is on the purchaser to prove that they were always ready
and it is only the vendor who refused to perform the contract for
extraneous considerations. In order to support their averments,
the purchaser (Sunil Siddam Setty) entered into the witness box
and deposed as PW1.
64. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed as below:
We have paid a sum Rs. 10,850/ towards
“
advance of sale consideration on 27.03.1997,
when one of the agreement of sale was executed.
It is true one cheque which was issued by us for a
sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ was bounced. When the
said fact was brought to our notice, we issued a
demand draft for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ within
10 of [sic.] 15 days and obtained a separate
receipt for that amount from Deft. No. 6 by name
Katta Sujatha Reddy. It is mentioned in the
agreement for sale dt. 26.03.1997 the transaction
has to be completed within three months. Witness
40
volunteers and says; the three month time was
stipulated with some conditions.
It is mentioned in another agreement of sale
dated 27.03.1997 that the sale transaction
has to be completed within three months
with some conditions.
…
Q. How many times you met the Defendant and
demanded for execution in the year 1997?
Ans. … We did not issue any notice to the
defendants in the year 1997 by demanding
them to receive the balance of sale
consideration and execute sale deed in our
favour.
It is not true to suggest that I was not ready and
willing to perform my part of contract and that I
never had balance of sale consideration and that I
did not demand the defendants within stipulated
period to receive the balance of sale consideration
and to execute the sale deed and that due to it, I
am not entitled to get the relief of specific
performance of agreement of sale as prayed in my
suit. …
I did not get issued any written notice to D5
prior to 06.07.2002. Witness volunteers and
says: that the entire transaction had taken
place in good faith and they never
anticipated court proceedings at that time.
(emphasis supplied)
65. From the above it is clear that the purchaser did not
voluntarily adhere to the time stipulation under the contract. In
order to bypass the condition of time being the essence, the
41
purchaser invoked the standard of good faith. Aforesaid standard
prescribes a higher duty of care for parties entering into a
contract. Unless such duty is expressly stipulated, good faith
standard cannot be implicitly read into any contract.
66. This Court does not subscribe to acceptance of a general
standard of good faith to imply broader good faith obligations
only to give a goby to the explicit conditions for maintaining the
sanctity of contract. Such broad standards will have potentially
far reaching consequences. This Court agrees that such an
implicit reading would come into play post the 2018 Amendment
to the Specific Relief Act which enables specific performance of
contracts to uphold their sanctity. However, from the facts and
circumstances of this case, we cannot accept that such higher
standards of good faith was relevant.
On the aspect of the vendor’s obligation to provide requisite
67.
and necessary documents, DW1 (Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy), has
averred that all the documents were available. It is only after the
purchaser was satisfied about the sound title that he entered
into the agreement to sell.
42
68. In the light of the above, it is clear that Section 16(c) of the
Specific Relief Act would only come into force if the purchaser
was ready and willing to perform the contract within the three
month period prescribed under Clause 3 of the agreements. The
aforesaid conclusion is also bolstered by the fact that specific
performance can only be granted when essential terms of
contract are not violated in terms of Section 16(b).
From the above, we can safely conclude that the purchaser
69.
was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within
the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot
be granted for the entire contract.
The last aspect which we need to consider in this matter is
70.
whether possession was with the purchaser after entering into
agreements to sell in 1997. On this aspect, the High Court has
decided in favour of the purchaser by relying upon the evidence
of PW1 and the proceedings before the Revenue Authorities.
However, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not duly
considered the statement of PW1 in its proper perspective. PW1
during the course of crossexamination, has not specifically
43
pointed out as to when was the purchaser put into possession of
the property. PW1 has not further proved that there was any
development cost incurred by him for developing the aforesaid
land.
71. The claim of PW2 that the disputed land was developed by the
purchaser, is clearly unacceptable in the light of exhibits A22 to
A26 which are the photographs of the property that show that no
development had taken place, as averred by the purchaser.
Reliance on the revenue records concerning mutation may not be
of any significance when the question of possession is to be
decided solely on the facts as available on the records.
72. In this context, we do not propose to burden this judgment
with a detailed discussion of the testimonies of DW2 and DW3
which clearly go to show that the purchaser was never in
possession of the aforesaid land.
73. If the agreement of sale is coupled with possession, it requires
stamp duty and stamp duty has to be paid as per Schedule 1A of
Article 47A of the Stamp Act. Further, asking for the relief of
recovery of possession also shows that the plaintiff was not in
44
possession of the property. The trial Court has rightly answered
this point against the plaintiff and the Appellate Court, on an
erroneous appreciation of the facts and law, reversed the said
findings.
SSUE
I D
74. The last aspect which has been argued before us concerns
application of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This
issue arises from the fact that the purchaser is said to have paid
90 percent of the sale consideration and in lieu thereof, the High
Court has held that the purchaser is entitled to ninety percent of
the scheduled land.
75. Although this argument appears to be attractive in the first
gloss, however a deeper examination of the same would paint a
contrary picture. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads
| 12. | Specific performance of part of contract. | |
|---|---|---|
| — |
45
proportion to the whole in value and admits of
compensation in money, the court may, at the suit
of either party, direct the specific performance of
so much of the contract as can be performed, and
award compensation in money for the deficiency.
(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to
perform the whole of his part of it, and the part
which must be left unperformed either—
(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though
admitting of compensation in money; or
(b) does not admit of compensation in money, he
is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific
performance; but the court may, at the suit of
other party, direct the party in default to perform
specifically so much of his part of the contract as
he can perform, if the other party—
(i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has
paid the agreed consideration for the whole of the
contract reduced by the consideration for the part
which must be left unperformed and a case falling
under clause (b), 1[pays or had paid] the
consideration for the whole of the contract without
any abatement; and
(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the
performance of the remaining part of the contract
and all right to compensation, either for the
deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by
him through the default of the defendant.
(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by
itself, can and ought to be specifically performed,
stands on a separate and independent footing
from another part of the same contract which
cannot or ought not to be specifically performed,
the court may direct specific performance of the
former part.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a
party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable
to perform the whole of his part of it if a portion of
its subject matter existing at the date of the
46
contract has ceased to exist at the time of its
performance.
76. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by this Court on
several occasions. In the case of Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurmeet
7
, this Court held as under:
Singh
“20. Section 12(1) provides that specific
performance can be granted on part of a contract
only in the circumstances mentioned in the
section. Section 12(2) deals with breach the
contract if a party is unable to perform the whole
of its part and such part bears a small proportion
to the whole in value and admits compensation in
money. The expression “unable to perform” in
Section 12(2) for instance would mean that a part
of the property destroyed after contract or act of
God or an act by which it would cease to exist. In
such a case party to a contract shall be deemed to
be unable to perform the whole or its part of the
contract. Such a person would come within the
words “party in default”. The inability to
perform may arise by deficiency in quantity
of subjectmatter or deficiencies or some
None
legal prohibition or such other causes.
of such causes is present in the instant case.
21. Section 12 of the Act does not apply
where the inability to perform specific
performance on part of contract arises
because of the plaintiff's own conduct as held
in Abdul Rahim v. Maidhar Gazi [Abdul Rahim v.
Maidhar Gazi, 1928 SCC OnLine Cal 20 : AIR
1928 Cal 584] . In Graham v. Krishna Chunder
Dey [Graham v. Krishna Chunder Dey, 1924 SCC
OnLine PC 63 : (192425) 52 IA 90 : AIR 1925 PC
45] it has been laid down that the Explanation in
the section exhaust all the circumstances in which
7
(2017) 12 SCC 810
47
partperformance can be granted. Section 12(2)
deals with the situation where a party is unable
to perform and such part is only a small
proportion in value and capable of compensation
in form of money. It was not a case covered in
Section 12(2) at all.
Under Section 12(3) party
in default is entitled to specific performance
on payment of whole consideration or for the
part left unperformed but here in the instant
case the plaintiff being in default could not
be said to be entitled to invoke Section 12(3)
also .”
77. From the above, it is clear that there was no inability on part
of the parties to perform the rest of the contract or the remaining
part was waived. In this case, the purchaser breached the
essential condition of the contract, which altogether disentitles
him to claim specific performance. There is no doubt that the
claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as
they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated
time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years. In
this context, in Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala
8
, this Court held as under:
Parvathamma
“8. A perusal of subsection (3) of Section 12
shows that the first part of the said provisions
mandates refusal of specific performance of a
contract on certain conditions. However, the latter
part of the provisions permits a court to direct the
8
(2001) 8 SCC 173
48
party in default to perform specifically so much of
his part of the contract as he can perform if the
other party pays or has paid the agreed
consideration for the whole of the contract and
relinquishes all claims to the performance of the
remaining part of the contract and all the rights to
compensation for the loss sustained by him. If a
suit is laid by the other party, the court may
direct the defaulting party to perform that
part of the contract which is performable on
satisfying two preconditions i.e. (i) the
plaintiff pays or has already paid the whole
of the consideration amount under the
agreement, and that (ii) the plaintiff
relinquishes all claims to the performance of
the other part of the contract which the
defaulting party is incapable to perform and
all rights to compensation for loss sustained
. Thus, the ingredients which would
by him
attract specific performance of the part of the
contract, are: (i) if a party to an agreement is
unable to perform a part of the contract, he is to
be treated as defaulting party to that extent, and
(ii) the other party to an agreement must, in a suit
for such specific performance, either pay or has
paid the whole of the agreed amount, for that part
of the contract which is capable of being
performed by the defaulting party and also
relinquish his claim in respect of the other part of
the contract which the defaulting party is not
capable to perform and relinquishes the claim of
compensation in respect of loss sustained by him.
If such ingredients are satisfied, the
discretionary relief of specific performance
is ordinarily granted unless there is delay or
laches or any other disability on the part of
the other party .
( emphasis supplied )
49
Therefore, we do not think that it is an appropriate case for
78.
granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred
by delay, laches and limitation.
79. We are of the firm opinion that the contract was breached due
to the conduct of the plaintiff/purchaser, who were not willing to
perform the contract after entering into a time sensitive
agreement. In any case, it is an admitted fact that plaintiff had
paid only part consideration. Though there is a forfeiture clause
in the agreement, this Court with a view of rendering complete
justice between the parties, deems it appropriate to direct the
vendors/appellants to repay the said amount with interest @
7.5% p.a. from the date such payment was made by the
purchaser to the vendors, till the entire amount is paid back. We
further direct the vendors to pay the entire amount to the credit
of the suit account within six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of the order.
80. The appeal is allowed on the above terms and the parties are
left to bear their own costs.
50
C.A. N O .5823/2022 ( ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) N O . 19920/2021)
AND C.A. N O .5824/2022 ( ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)
O
N .19286/2021)
81. In light of the above judgment, the present appeals are
disposed of accordingly.
.............................CJI.
(N. V. RAMANA)
...…..........................J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
..........…………….......J.
(HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 25, 2022.
51