Specific Relief Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

As 2024 ends, LiveLaw presents a summary of significant Supreme Court judgments from the year related to the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Here are the key highlights:1. Suit For Declaration Of Title Without Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Maintainable When Plaintiff Not In Possession: Supreme CourtCase Title: VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 117The bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, reiterated the well-established legal position that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession.The Court added that a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second appellate stage to seek a possession of the property. Since the plaintiff did not attempt to amend the plaint to seek the relief of recovery of possession. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal while deciding this point of law in favor of the Appellant.2. Specific Performance Of Contract Can Be Refused If Suit Wasn't Filed Immediately After Breach Though Within Limitation Period : Supreme CourtCase Title: RAJESH KUMAR VERSUS ANAND KUMAR & ORS., Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407The bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and PK Mishra noted that the limitation period for filing a suit for the specific performance of a contract is three years, but clarified that every suit for the specific performance of the contract filed within the period of limitation cannot be decreed.In this case, the Court refused to grant the discretionary relief of the specific performance of the suit to the appellant/plaintiff due to his conduct for not preferring the suit within a reasonable time despite knowing the fact of the breach of the contract well before the filing of the suit.3. Specific Performance Suit Can't Be Decreed Based On Power Of Attorney Holder's Deposition About Plaintiff's Readiness & Willingness: Supreme CourtCase Title: RAJESH KUMAR VERSUS ANAND KUMAR & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407In this case, the Court held that wherein the plaintiff is required to prove his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, then the suit for specific performance of the contract cannot be decreed based on the deposition made by the plaintiff's power of attorney about the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform a contract.If a plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance, is required to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, it is necessary for him to step into the witness box and depose the said fact and subject himself to cross-examination on that issue. Having failed to step into the witness box to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract would result in rejection of the suit of specific performance due to non-fulfillment of the requisites of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prashant Kumar Mishra clarified.4. Specific Performance Suit | Plaintiff Need Not Seek Cancellation Of Subsequent Sale Deed Executed With Prior Knowledge Of Agreement To Sell : Supreme CourtCase Details: MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. Versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 473A bench of Justices AS Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that in a suit for specific performance filed against a vendor obligated to transfer the suit property to the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation of a subsequent sale made by the vendor to a third party (subsequent transferee).The Court held the subsequent purchasers cannot ask the plaintiff to plead for cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds and would be directed to execute the sale deed along with the original vendor in favor of the plaintiff.5. Specific Relief Act | Supreme Court Reiterates Mandatory Requirement Of Direct And Specific Pleadings In Suit For Specific PerformanceCase Title – P. Ravindranath & Anr. v. Sasikala & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 491The Court reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract must provide direct, specific, and accurate pleadings that he is willing and ready to perform his obligations in the contract and such pleadings must be proved with evidence.The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed a suit under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for specific performance of an agreement for sale of property, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The Apex Court observed that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient pleadings and evidence to prove their case.6. Specific Relief Act | Execution Court Can Entertain Application Under S.28 Provided It's The Court Which Passed The Decree In Terms Of S.37 CPC : Supreme CourtCase Title: ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS. Versus BHIM SINGH & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 651The Court held that...

Specific Relief Act: Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024

Yash Mittal

Tags