KAMAL KANT JAIN versus SURINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS.
Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not bar specific performance merely because a sum is named as damages unless it is clearly stipulated that payment of the sum is in lieu of specific performance; in this case, the amount was intended to secure performance, not as an alternative, so specific performance is ordered.
- Parties
- Appellant: Kamal Kant Jain; Respondent: Surinder Singh (D) Thr. LRs.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 27 October 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Order Dated 29.04.2008 by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.1178 of 1996
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Specific Performance, Liquidated Damages, Sale of Immovable Property
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kamal Kant Jain
Appellant
Surinder Singh (D) Thr. LRs.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Final Judgment and Order Dated 29.04.2008 by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.1178 of 1996
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether liquidation of damages is a bar to specific performance under Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
- 2 Interpretation of agreement clauses related to damages and specific performance
Ratio Decidendi
Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not bar specific performance merely because a sum is named as damages unless it is clearly stipulated that payment of the sum is in lieu of specific performance; in this case, the amount was intended to secure performance, not as an alternative, so specific performance is ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Impugned judgment set aside.
- Specific performance of agreement to sell ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment