Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 | Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 16 - Whether the defendants were entitled to protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, based on an unregistered sale agreement - Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court were perverse or erroneous. Held, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming the judgments of the High Court, First Appellate Court, and Trial Court, which decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. The defendants failed to prove the execution of the alleged sale agreement dated 25-11-1968 and their possession based on it. The courts below found consistent evidence establishing that the defendants had no lawful possession and had illegally occupied the property. The High Court correctly held that the defendants did not satisfy the prerequisites for invoking protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 53A, being an exception to the usual requirements of registration and writing, must be strictly construed and could not apply in this case due to lack of proof of the agreement and part-performance. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act provides protection to a transferee in possession only if the essential conditions, including the existence of a written and signed contract and acts of part-performance, are fulfilled. The burden of proving readiness and willingness to perform under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, lies on the party seeking specific performance or protection under Section 53A. Special Leave Petition dismissed. Giriyappa v. Kamalamma, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1038Section 20 - Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Hardship – Held, the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and must be guided by judicial principles. Mere inadequacy of consideration, rise in price, or the onerous nature of the contract does not constitute hardship under Section 20(2) of the Act unless unforeseen at the time of entering into the contract. The Court reversed the High Court's judgment that denied specific performance on the ground of hardship to the defendants, noting that the hardship claimed was neither unforeseeable nor substantiated by evidence. It reaffirmed the Trial Court's decree for specific performance with a modification. Appeal allowed. Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1028Section 22 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 55 - Whether the executing court can grant the relief of possession when a decree for specific performance does not explicitly include possession - Interpretation of the scope of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act concerning relief for possession during execution proceedings. Held, the Supreme Court reiterated that in a suit for specific performance, the relief of possession can be implied under certain circumstances, even if not explicitly decreed, particularly when possession is with the contracting party. The Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which directed the executing court to issue a warrant of possession to the decree-holder, recognizing the implied right to possession under a decree for specific performance. The Court relied on its precedent in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525 and the principle that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows the amendment of pleadings to include possession at any stage, including execution proceedings. This is to ensure complete and effective relief to the decree-holder and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The petition was dismissed as the High Court's order directing the executing court to grant possession to the decree-holder was found to be in accordance with established legal principles. Birma Devi v. Subhash, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976Section 16(c) (pre-amendment) - Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Burden of Proof - The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court which reversed the trial court's decree for specific performance granted in favor of the plaintiff-petitioner. The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Readiness pertains to the plaintiff's financial and practical capacity to fulfill the contract, whereas willingness refers to the plaintiff's conduct and intention. Both are essential for granting specific performance. The plaintiff must specifically plead and substantiate readiness and willingness through oral and documentary evidence, including proof of financial capability. The High Court, on reappreciating the evidence, held that the plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness. This finding, being factual, was not considered perverse by the Supreme Court. Special Leave Petition dismissed. Findings of the High Court upheld. R. Shama Naik v. G. Srinivasiah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 947Section 10 and...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2024 | Specific Relief Act, 1963

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags