Buyer Who Paid Rs 2 Lakh Gets Specific-Performance Decree Restored As Karnataka HC Says Sellers Never Pleaded Hardship

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land, alleging that he had paid ₹2,00,000 of the ₹2,27,500 consideration and that the defendants were required to rectify the revenue and survey records before completing the sale.

The Trial Court decreed specific performance, directing payment of the ₹27,500 balance and requiring the defendants to obtain the survey sketch and rectify the records.

The First Appellate Court upheld the findings that time was not of the essence and the suit was not time-barred, but set aside specific performance and directed refund of the advance with 10% interest, reasoning that delay and price escalation would cause hardship to the defendants.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 100 CPC; the defendants did not appear in the High Court.

Under the applicable version of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, specific performance was discretionary, but the discretion had to be exercised judicially and on established principles; the statutory grounds for refusing relief included unfair advantage, unforeseen hardship to the defendant, or inequitable circumstances.

A defendant seeking to resist specific performance on hardship grounds must plead that hardship; the court should not entertain such a plea in the absence of the necessary pleading [Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao, (2019) 6 SCC 233].

The High Court also relied on J.R. Shanmukhappa v. Jyotiba, RSA No. 100012/2017 (11 July 2023), for the proposition that price escalation alone does not justify refusing specific performance where hardship has neither been pleaded nor proved.

The defendants’ written statement contained no plea that specific performance would cause hardship, confer an unfair advantage on the plaintiff, or otherwise be inequitable; nor was hardship supported by evidence.

The First Appellate Court nevertheless relied on delay and escalation in prices to refuse relief, without a proper basis in the pleadings or evidence.

Further, the agreement placed on the defendants the obligation to obtain the survey sketch and rectify the revenue records before executing the sale deed. Their failure to perform that obligation could not be used to deny the plaintiff specific performance.

The High Court therefore held that the First Appellate Court’s exercise of discretion was legally unsustainable.

It restored the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance in O.S. No. 138/2007, including the direction to pay the balance consideration and the defendants’ obligation to complete the required survey and revenue-record corrections before executing the sale deed.