Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Specific relief act, 1963

ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLA versus JAGAT DHARI

Dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution does not merge the trial court decree into an appellate order; permitting deposit in execution proceedings to test bona fides does not preclude a Section 28 application; courts exercising Section 28 must consider all relevant circumstances and balance equities, and may rescind the contract or grant extension on terms including compensation; because the lower courts failed to apply these principles, their orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Source excerpt

  • Rescission of the contract
  • Doctrine of merger
  • Delay in deposit of the balance sale consideration
  • Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale
  • Execution and registration of sale deed
  • Dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

HABBAN SHAH versus SHERUDDIN

The decree of specific performance dated 31.10.2012, which conditioned execution of the sale deed on deposit of the balance sale consideration within three months, became inexecutable because the plaintiff-respondent failed to deposit the balance within the stipulated period and did not seek extension in time; consequently the contract stood rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act and the execution objections were upheld, with directions for refund of earnest money with interest.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Executability of decree
  • Conditional decree
  • Balance sale consideration
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Equitable relief
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJI versus SAKEENA BEEVI

The affidavit dated 30.04.2013 executed by the defendant ratified the acts of the unregistered power of attorney holder and expressed no-objection to transfer; limitation therefore commenced from that date and the suit filed in 2013 was within the prescribed period; the appellant proved readiness and willingness; the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal; appellant entitled to conveyance of the defendant's 1/11th share, subject to payment of the balance consideration to be determined by the trial Court with 9% simple interest.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Readiness and willingness
  • Limitation
  • Power of attorney
  • Ratification
  • Revocation
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

K.S. MANJUNATH AND OTHERS versus MOORASAVIRAPPA @ MUTTANNA CHENNAPPA BATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS AND OTHER

The notice of termination dated 10.03.2003 was a unilateral, not bona fide repudiation of a non-determinable Agreement to Sell; because the ATS contained no clause permitting unilateral termination and the reasons given were extraneous to any default by the vendees (and earnest money was not refunded), the ATS remained subsisting and enforceable; the subsequent purchasers had sufficient actual and constructive notice of the ATS and the surrounding circumstances and therefore were not bona fide purchasers under Section 19(b); the original vendees had proved continuous readiness and willingness…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Unilateral termination of agreement to sell
  • Bona fide purchaser
  • Readiness and willingness to perform
  • Determinable contracts
  • Section 19(b) protection
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS. versus HABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

Where a plaintiff establishing title under a prior instrument is not an executant of a subsequent instrument relied on by a defendant, the plaintiff is not obliged to seek cancellation under Section 31; Section 34 permits a declaratory decree and the proviso to s.34 requires claiming further relief only where such relief directly and necessarily flows from the declaration and is within the plaintiff's ability to seek; the High Court erred in dismissing the suit solely because the plaintiff did not pray for cancellation of the subsequent sale deed, and the trial court decree in favour of the p…

Source excerpt

  • Declaration of title
  • Cancellation of instrument
  • Proviso to section 34
  • Gift deed
  • Sale deed
  • Possession
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

RAM LAL versus JARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that once an appellate court affirms a trial court's decree the appellate decree becomes the operative and executable decree (doctrine of merger); appellate courts have a duty under Order XX Rule 12A CPC to specify the time for deposit of purchase money when they decide appeals, and courts (including at the appellate stage) have jurisdiction under Section 28 Specific Relief Act to extend time to deposit purchase money subject to judicial discretion considering bona fides, cause and length of delay and equities; on the facts the High Court erred in setting aside the exec…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Execution of decree
  • Delay in filing execution petition
  • Time-limit for deposit of balance sale consideration
  • Section 28 specific relief act (rescission)
  • Order xx rule 12a cpc
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

BALBIR SINGH & ANR. ETC. versus BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS. ETC.

The High Court correctly held that upon allowance of the second appeals the trial court's decree merged into the appellate decree (doctrine of merger) and that the appellate decree is the operative one which the decree-holder may execute; because the High Court in the second appeals did not fix any period for deposit of the balance sale consideration, the 20-day direction in the original trial decree did not revive or apply after the High Court judgment, and the executing court was entitled to permit deposit and reject the defendants' application under Section 28; moreover courts have discret…

Source excerpt

  • Doctrine of merger
  • Rescission of contract
  • Section 28 of specific relief act, 1963
  • Specific performance
  • Extension of time for payment of money
  • Section 148 of code of civil procedure, 1908
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

VIJAY PRABHU versus S.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS.

The High Court did not err in refusing specific performance under Section 12(3) because the courts below found the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform and was in default; Section 12(3) is discretionary and applies only where terms permit segregation of rights and where the plaintiff is not in default; however, relinquishment of claims can be made at any stage of litigation.

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance of part of contract
  • Relinquishment of claim
  • Ready and willing to perform
  • Discretionary relief under section 12(3)
  • Partial relief
Read case analysis
Transfer of property act, 1882

GIRIYAPPA & ANR. versus KAMALAMMA & ORS.

Where a defendant relying on Section 53A fails to prove the existence and execution of a written contract (sale agreement) and possession in part-performance under that contract, protection under Section 53A does not arise; the High Court correctly dismissed the Second Appeal affirming trial and first appellate courts' findings, and the SLP was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Part performance
  • Section 53a
  • Suit for declaration and recovery of possession
  • Sale agreement
  • Proof of execution of sale agreement
  • Strict construction
Read case analysis
Specific relief act, 1963

BIRMA DEVI & ORS. versus SUBHASH & ANR.

Where exclusive possession of the suit property is with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance simpliciter may give complete relief to the decree-holder including delivery of possession; but where possession cannot be effectively granted without a specific claim (for example, jointly held property or possession by a third person), the plaintiff must claim transfer of possession. Section 22 permits amendment to plead such relief at any stage, including execution, and the executing court may grant possession in appropriate cases. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave P…

Source excerpt

  • Specific performance
  • Relief of possession
  • Execution proceedings
  • Amendment of plaint under section 22
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.