Legal Reference Library

In Jayakantham & Others v. Abaykumar, the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court arises from a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Madras High Court. Dismissing second appeal, Single Judge confirmed judgment of Principal District Judge, by which an appeal against judgment of Sub-Judge was dismissed. Trial court decreed suit for specific performance instituted by Respondent against Appellants. Appellants submitted that this is a fit and proper case where specific performance ought not to be ordered and a decree for compensation in lieu thereof would meet the ends of justice. Section 20(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that, jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, discretion of Court is not arbitrary but is “sound and reasonable”, to be “guided by judicial principles”. Exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a Court of appeal in hierarchy of appellate Courts. Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of Act contains a stipulation of tho...

The Supreme Court in Robin Ramjibhai Patel vs. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar And Ors, has reiterated that when the plaintiff wants to implead certain persons as defendants in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they may be adversely affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors. In the instant case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for the specific performance of an agreement for sale of property. His application to implead the proposed purchasers having registered agreement of sale in their favour as defendants was rejected by the trial court and the order was confirmed by the high court. On his appeal, the apex court bench comprising Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and Justice R Banumathi, referring to Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors observed that the necessary parties in a suit...

The Supreme Court of India in Madina Begum & Anr. Vs. Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey has observed that it is unfortunate that the Parties have to undergo another round of litigation because of non-consideration of settled legal priciples by High Court. The apex Court has reiterated that, in the absence of a specified date for the performance of the agreement,the limitation period of three years,prescribed in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, for filing Suit for Specific Performance of Contract would begin when the plaintiff has notice that the defendant has refused the performance of the agreement. The Bench comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal also held that, the High Court when it acts as First Appellate Court, has a duty to deal with all the issues and evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The High Court in this case, had reversed the finding of Trial Court and held that the Suit is barred for limitation. The High Court did not go into the merits...