Specific Relief Act, 1963

Specific Relief Act 1963 (47 of 1963) Section  6 - If the plaintiff was dispossessed during the currency of lease or even thereafter forcibly, the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was maintainable because the only issue which needs determination in such suit by the Court is whether a party has been forcibly dispossessed or not - If the Court records a finding that the party has been dispossessed, it is bound to restore possession. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 -  It is  duty of the Court to examine whether relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell would be an equitable relief in the facts and circumstances of the Case - The relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell is discretionary - Of course, the discretion has to be exercised by the court on sound judicial principles - In the present case, in view of the reasons which have been recorded in the earlier part of the judgment, there is some doubt about the genuineness of the agreement to sell, specific performance whereof has been sought for.   (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) - Once the counsel for the plaintiff made a statement that the plaintiff is not ready to deposit the amount and that also after the mortgage had been redeemed by the defendant, the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance could not be decreed. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section  6 - Co-sharer of the property - In case of co-sharership, all the co-sharers would be deemed to be in possession of every inch of land till the joint land is partitioned by metes and bounds - Co-sharer without being any exclusive possession cannot oust the other co-sharer from enjoyment of the property as all the co-sharers would be deemed to be in possession over every inch of land. (2018-1 ) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 16(c) – It is evident that there has been no compliance of Section 16(c) of the  Act – In the absence of the compliance of Section 16(c) of the Act the suit must fall and rightly so, the trial Court dismissed the same – All these facts in my view have totally been ignored by the Lower Appellate Court, thus, there is an abdication and preversity.   (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 16(c) – Provisions specifically provides that the plaintiff must assert and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him - Merely because the defendants has denied the execution of the agreement to sell does not absolve the plaintiff from the duty to assert and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – Agreement to Sell – No explanation has came forward as to why the legal notice was sent under postal service and not through registered post – Application was not entertained by the Clerk or the official of the Sub registrar which was not the date fixed for execution of the sale deed of the remaining part – Even second application did not bore any receipt whether it was ever submitted in the office of the Sub Registrar - In my view, the appellant-plaintiff has not been been able to prove the readiness and willingness, which has to be continuous from the date of execution of the agreement, during the pendency of the suit till the passing of the decree – Not entitled to discretionary relief.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – Court has erred in returning a finding that since the marginal witnesses have failed to depose that consideration was paid in their presence, therefore, the payment of the consideration is not proved - First of all, the sale deed is not required to be attested by the marginal witnesses as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act - Secondly, the marginal witnesses are to attest the documents about its due execution and contents having been explained to the executants – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882) Section 54. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 - Discretion under Section 20 of 1963 Act has to be granted in a rarest of rare case where the other party, i.e., the vendee had proved all the ingredients entitling him/her such relief - Appellant-defendants in any manner did not deny the signatures on the agreement to sell – No sane person would sit ideal and remain silent if the fraud had actually been played and perpetuated - If at all property dealer had misused the blank signed papers, nothing prevented the appellant-defendants to lodge an appropriate criminal proceedings in accordance with law - Perhaps they were afraid that the cat would be out of the bag or may not be hauled up under Section 182 Cr.P.C. – There is no requirement in the law that agreement to sell is to be executed by deed writer - Once the agreement to sell has been proved, the report of handwriting expert has rightly been discarded and adverse inference cannot be drawn against the plaintiff for not examining the handwriting expert. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – Establishes that the discretion should not be exercised arbitrarily - However, discretion as provided under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is to be based upon sound and reasonable judicial principles - Such discretion is capable of correction by a court of appeal – Suit for specific performance was filed after a period of 11 months of appearance in the court in a suit filed seeking declaration on that agreement to sell has cease to exist – Merely because discretionary relief has not been granted, the amount of earnest money paid cannot be declared to have been forfeited.  (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – Explanation - Agreement to sell – Mere inadequacy of the consideration cannot be a ground to deny the specific performance - The agreement to sell is a contract between the parties and once the parties with open eyes entered into a contract, they are bound to honour the same.    (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – If the learned First Appellate Court feels that the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court is erroneous, the court must deal with the reasons given by the learned trial court and after analyzing those reasons, the learned First Appellate Court is required to give its own reasons for not agreeing with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court - Section 20 of the Act enables the Court to exercise discretion after recording sound and reasonable reasons guided by judicial principles. Madan Lal v. Rupa Ram . (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 233

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 20 – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell – First appellate court has reversed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and ordered refund of the double of the earnest money along with interest @ 6% per annum – Learned trial court has only granted decree qua the share of defendant – First appellate court has also held that since some part of the land has been compulsorily acquired hence the agreement to sell stands frustrated – The rights of the parties crystallized on the day the suit was filed – Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell when the land was not under acquisition – When he filed the suit, the land was not under acquisition – It will be the decree for undivided share in the joint land – Hence, the reason assigned by the Court to deny the specific performance is also erroneous. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 26 - Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) Article 113, Schedule – Suit is only for rectification of the name of the father in the sale deed and consequential error in the revenue record - As per the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963, no limitation is provided for rectification - Rectification of instrument is governed by  Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act in which no limitation has been provided. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 31 – A non-executant is simply to file a suit for declaration claiming that such sale deed would not effect its rights - A non-executant is not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Hence, ad-valorem court fee was not payable by the plaintiff.   (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) Section 34 – Once plaintiffs had pleaded that the lease deed is declared null and void, which on being granted, the possession of the defendants would have become unauthorised and hence plaintiffs were required to seek further relief of possession from the defendants .         (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER