KAMAL KANT JAIN versus SURINDER SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether liquidation of damages is a bar to specific performance under Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
  2. 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.