Specific Relief Act, 1963: History

3 Specific Relief Act, 1963
Introduction
The Specific Relief Act of 1963 was enacted to provide remedies to persons whose civil or contractual
rights have been violated. The Act contains 44 sections, eight chapters, three parts, and a Schedule.
Part I deals with the Preliminary provisions. Part II deals with the provisions of Specific Relief—Recovering
possession of property, Specific performance of contracts, Rectification of instruments, Rescission of
contracts, Cancellation of instruments and Declaratory decrees. Part III deals with Preventive relief,
i.e., injunctions generally and perpetual injunctions. The Schedule provides for the Category of projects
and infrastructure sub-sectors.
History
The Specific Relief Act, 1963, was passed by both the houses of Parliament and received the permission
of the President on December 13, 1963. The Act came into force on 1 March 1964. The earlier Act of 1877
was replaced by this Act of 1963, as the former Act was not exhaustive. In December 1960, the Bill was
introduced in Parliament on the recommendation of the 9th Law Commission report, but it lapsed. In
1962, the Bill was re-introduced, which made law on Specific Relief. This Act came into force as the
47th Act of the year 1963.
Applicability of the Act

The Specific Relief Act of 1963 extends to the whole of India.
According to the Savings Clause in Section 3 of the Act: “Except as otherwise provided herein, nothing
in this Act shall be deemed—
(a) to deprive any person of any right to relief, other than specific performance, which he may have
under any contract; or
(b) to affect the operation of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), on documents.”
Whether specific reliefs are for enforcing penal laws as well—Section 4 of the Act states: “Specific
relief can be granted only to enforce individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing
a penal law.”
Specific relief in respect of contracts—The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the
court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14, and Section 16.
The Objective of the Act

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for the specific performance of a contract without monetary
relief, making it an alternative remedy. The main objectives of the Act have been vested in the very
title of this statute, i.e., Specific Relief, which means the Specific Relief Act is a legal statute dealing
with relief or recovery of the injured person’s damages. Primarily, this Act was enacted to protect and
enforce the primary rights of the aggrieved party. The Specific Relief Act explains and enunciates the
various reliefs which can be granted under its provisions and provides the law concerning them.
To exercise jurisdiction and to try a suit under this Act with respect to contracts relating to
infrastructure projects—Section 20B of the Act states: “The State Government, in consultation with
the Chief Justice of the High Court, shall designate, by notification published in the Official Gazette,
Specific Relief Act, 1963 169

one or more Civil Courts as Special Courts, within the local limits of the area to exercise jurisdiction
and to try a suit under this Act in respect of contracts relating to infrastructure projects.”
Statement of Objects and Reasons

This Act seeks to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission contained in its ninth
report on the Specific Relief Act, 1877, except regarding Section 42, which is being retained as it now
stands. An earlier Bill on the subject was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 23, 1960 but lapsed
on its dissolution. The notes on clauses, extracted from the report of the Law Commission, explain the
changes made in the existing Act.
List of Amending Acts

1. The Repealing and Amending Act, 1964 (Act 52 of 1964)
2. The Repealing and Amending Act, 1974 (Act 56 of 1974)
3. The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act 18 of 2018)
4. The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Act 34 of 2019)
Points to Remember
!
a. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is based on the recommendation of the Ninth Report of the Law
Commission of India.
b. Specific relief can be granted only to enforce individual civil rights and not to enforce a penal
law.
c. A person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner
provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
d. Specific Relief is a discretionary remedy, i.e., it is the discretionary power of the court to grant
relief of specific performance.
e. The court is not bound to grant specific relief merely because it is lawful or because the suit or
has the right to get such relief.
f. Preventive relief is granted at the court’s discretion by an injunction- temporary or perpetual.
g. The injunction is an order of the court that demands a party to door not do certain acts.
h. A temporary injunction may be granted at any time during the pendency of the suit. The Code of
Civil Procedure regulates such an injunction. The temporary injunction is granted for a specific
period of time or as adjudged by the court.
i. A permanent injunction is granted by the Court’s decree and upon examining the facts and
merits of the case.
j. A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at the hearing and upon the
suit’s merits.
k. A mandatory injunction is an extraordinary remedial process, granted not as a matter of right
but in the exercise of sound judicial discretion.
l. The power of appointing a receiver is a discretionary power exercised by the court.

Subjective Theory
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is based on the maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium,” which means that ‘where
there is a right, there is a remedy’. It is a legal statute that principally deals with the relief and recovery
of the damages of the aggrieved party. The Act does not give rise to a cause of action created by some
other substantive law (except for Section 6) but certainly provides remedy or relief. The relief provided
is in personam and not in rem. The Act revolves around two basic principles—the one who seeks equity
must do equity, and the one who seeks equity must approach the court with clean hands. The Preamble
of the Act declares it as not being an exhaustive Act. It reads: “An Act to define and amends the law
relating to certain kinds of specific relief.” When the Act does not provide for the relief required, then
the civil court exercises its inherent power conferred under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(CPC) 1908 to provide such relief, and if the courts do not provide such relief as claimed, then such
relief can be obtained by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The Specific Relief Act of 1963 is enacted to enforce legal rights and not to enforce penal laws. Section
4 of the Act can be interpreted to state that the Act has been enacted solely to enforce and protect
the plaintiff’s civil rights.
The Act provides for certain kinds of reliefs, which are enumerated as under.
1. Recovery of possession of immovable and movable properties
2. Specific performance of contracts
3. Rectification, cancellation of instruments and rescission of contracts
4. Declaratory relief
5. Preventive relief
6. Recovery of possession of specific immovable property
Section 5 – Recovery of specific immovable property

Section 5 of the Act entitles a person to recover the possession of specific immovable property in
the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The essence of the Section is that whoever
proves the better title is the person entitled to possession. Section 2(a) of the Act defines obligation
to include every duty enforceable by law. Even Hopfield’s Analysis of rights and duties also figures the
right and duty as ‘jural co-relates’.
LIMITATION ACT GOVERNING SUITS FOR POSSESSION
Article 64 Article 65
Where the suit filed is based on previous Where the suit filed is based on title; the
possession and not on title; the suit may be suit may be filed within 12 years when the
filed within 12 years of dispossession of the possession of the defendant becomes adverse
plaintiff from the suit property. to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court categorically held in Ram Nagina Rai versus Deo Kumar Rai (D) by LRs, (2019) 13 SCC
324: (2018) 10 SCALE 630 that once a party proves its title, the onus of proof would be shifted on the
other party to prove the claim of title by adverse possession. The test of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario,
i.e., ‘without force, without secrecy, without permission needs to be applied to determine the adverse
possession claim. Possession of a co-owner, a licensee, an agent, or a permissive possession that has
become adverse must be established by cogent and convincing evidence to show hostile animus and
possession adverse to the knowledge of a real owner.

Section 6 – Suit by Person Dispossessed of Immovable Property
Section 6 of the Act enumerates the right of a person who has been dispossessed, without his consent,
out of the immovable property, otherwise than in due course of law. It says that such a person or any
other person claiming through him may recover the possession of the property by suit. The suit under
Section 6 shall be filed within six months of dispossession, and no suit shall be brought against the
government.
Neither appeal nor review is maintainable against any order or decree passed in such suit. The
proceedings under Section 5 of the Act are categorized as general proceedings, whereas those in
Section 6 of the Act are summary in nature. The provisions of Section 6 do not bar any person from
establishing one’s title to such property and recover its possession thereof.
The purpose behind Section 6 of the Act is to restrain a person from using force to dispossess another
person without one’s consent, otherwise than in the due process of law [East India Hotels Limited
versus Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (36): (1991) DLT 476 (SC): JT 1991 (6) SC 112: 1991 (2) SCALE
638].
In a suit under Section 6 of the Act, the only question that has to be determined by the court is whether
the plaintiff had the disputed property and whether he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on
any date within six months prior to the filing of the suit [ITC Limited versus Adarsh Cooperative Housing
Society Limited, JT 2012 (8) SC 188].
Where an interim order was passed in the suit under Section 6 of the Act, it was held that the grant
of such an order was not appealable under Order XLIII, rule 1, CPC [Modhukarbhai Trambaklal Shahthro
versus Sterling Bhopal City Coop Housing Society, AIR 2009 NOC 262 (Guj)].
The case Nair Service Society versus KC Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165 enlightens the difference between
the action for possession under Section 5 and Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
It states: “Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that a person entitled to possession of
specific immovable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. The provisions of this section should not be confused with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.
The remedy under Section 5 is the general remedy, while the remedy under Section 6 is an additional
remedy. If a suit is brought under Section 6 for recovery of possession, no title question must be raised
or determined. The plaintiff has to prove that he has been forcibly dispossessed, and the possession
will be restored to him provided he brings his action within six months of the date of dispossession.
Suppose he does not bring an action for recovery of possession within the prescribed period of six
months. In that case, he can bring a suit within 12 years of dispossession based on his prior possessory
title against a latter trespasser.”
Section 5 Section 6
It is an available remedy, as the suit filed is an It is a summary and additional remedy.

ordinary suit to recover possession.
The claim is based on the title. The claim is based on the possession and no
proof of title is required.
The period of limitation for filing a suit is 12 The period of limitation is only six months from
years the date of possession.
The burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff to prove the following facts to avail the benefits
as described under Section 6.

1. He was in juridical possession of the immovable property in dispute.
2. The plaintiff had been dispossessed without his consent and otherwise than in due course of law.
The dispossession should occur within six months from the date of filing of the suit.
Juridical possession: In Prem Sharma versus Nishi Sharma, AIR 2003 HP 45, it was held that entries in
the municipal register of assessments and the report lodged with the police of dispossession showed
that the complainant had the house immediately before he was dispossessed. The court was inclined
towards granting the relief of recovery of possession.
Due course of law: The term ‘due course of law’ has been explained by the Supreme court in East
India Hotels Limited versus Syndicate Bank, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 29 (36): (1991) DLT 476 (SC): JT 1991 (6)
SC 112: 1991 (2) SCALE 638. The ‘due course of law’ implies that the right of a person affected thereby
to be present before the tribunal, which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty, or
property in its most comprehensive sense to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right
determination of the controversy by proof; every material fact which bears on the question of fact or
liability be conclusively proved or presumed against him.
Recovery of Possession of Specific Movable Property

Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, widely deals with the method for recovery of possession
of some specific movable property, thereby entitling a person to recover the possession of specific
movable property in the manner as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Article 91(b) of the
Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes a period of limitation for filing of the suit under Section 7 of the Act,
i.e., three years computable from the date when the property is wrongfully taken or injured or when
the detainer’s possession becomes unlawful.
Sine Qua Non for Applicability of Section 7
Plaintiff must be entitled to the possession: Property in question must be a specific

• by ownership movable property and capable of being
• by virtue of temporary or special right ascertained, seized, and delivered.
Liability to Deliver Possession to Person Entitled

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, significantly deals with the person’s liability to deliver the
specific movable property to the owner entitled to immediate possession thereof. The plaintiff in order
to get benefitted from the remedy available under Section 8, is burdened with the onus to prove the
following contentions.
y The defendant has possession or control over the particular movable property as claimed. Where the
defendant has held the property as an agent or trustee of the plaintiff, the onus is on the plaintiff to
prove the fiduciary relationship.
y Where the possession of the thing has been wrongly transferred from the plaintiff, the onus is on the
plaintiff to prove the wrongful transfer.
y Where the compensation in money would not afford adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed,
or where it is extremely difficult to ascertain actual damage caused by the loss of the thing claimed,
the onus lies upon the defendant to prove that compensation in money would be adequate relief
and that it would not be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by the loss of the
movable property.

Essential Ingredients to Section 8
(a) The defendant has the possession or control of a particular property claimed;
(b) Such property is a movable property;
(c) The defendant is not the owner of the property.
(d) The plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession.
In Wood versus Rowcliffe, (1844) 3 Hare 304: 64 RR 303, it was held that when a person is entrusted
with something, he is bound to return it as and when demanded. Even if he pledges that thing to
another, the pledgee will also remain subject to the same trust and under similar obligation and is
bound to return the same as demanded.
Difference Between Section 7 and Section 8

(a) Under Section 7, a person with a special or temporary right to present possession may even bring
a suit against the true owner. No suit can be brought against the true owner under section 8.
(b) Under section 7, a decree is for the return of the movable property or the money value there of in
the alternative. Under section 8, the decree is only for the return of movable property.
(c) Section 7 provides general relief for the recovery of movables; Section 8 provides relief in special
cases.
Specific Performance of Contract

The doctrine of specific performance of the contract was introduced by the Specific Relief Act, 1877,
which according to the Ninth Law Commission Report on Specific Relief Act, 1877, was originally drafted
upon the lines of New York Civil Code, 1862. Its main provisions embody the doctrines evolved by the
English equity court.
Specific performance means fulfilling a promise made under a contract as agreed. A suit for specific
performance can be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction by any party which has accrued loss due
to non-performance of the contract on the part of the other party.
Section 9 of the Act provides that except as provided under this chapter [i.e., Chapter II, Sections 9 to
25], all defenses open under the law of the contract shall be open to the defendant, where any relief
is claimed with respect to the contract. Therefore, the contract must be valid and enforceable.
In Bishandayal and Sons versus the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 544: (2001) 1 SCC 555, it was held that
a government contract concluded without fulfilling the requirements as prescribed by Article 299 of
the Constitution of India, cannot be specifically enforced.
Section 10 – Specific Performance in Respect of Contracts

Section 10 of the Act states that the specific performance of the contract shall be enforced by the
court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section 2 of Section 11, Section 14, and Section
16. Before the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, the court granted specific performance as an
exception rather than as a general rule. But the purpose behind the amendment was to remove the
ambiguities embedded in the Act. It seeks to enforce specific performance as a rule and damages as
an alternative remedy. By amending Section 10 of the Act, the Amendment Act makes the granting of
specific performance a general rule and has taken it out of the courts’ discretion. Section 10 of the
Act, as amended by the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, seeks to depart and is an attempt to
reduce the discretion of the courts relating to the enforcement of specific performance of contracts in
keeping with the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amending Act of 2018.

The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018: It came into force on 1 October 2018 with retrospective
effect, i.e., it shall apply to all actions even if an action may have preceded its enforcement or be based
on a claim of an anterior date. In Church of North India versus Ashoke Biswas, CO No. 863 of 2019, the
Calcutta High Court sought to ascertain the applicability of the SRA Amendment to the facts of the
case, wherein the amendment came into force during pendency of the suit. In its ruling, it held that the
language of Section 14 of the 1963 Act indicates that the relevant date for determining the applicability
of the amendment would be the date of passing of the decree, since Section 14(1) commences with the
phrase, “the following contracts cannot be specifically enforced...” Had the relevant date being that
of filing the suit, the language of Section 14(1) would be something akin to: “no suit can be filed for
specific performance of the following contracts...” Hence, the 2018 Amendment was held to apply to
the present case, thereby, strengthening the case for its retrospective application.
Section 11 cases in which specific performance of contract connected with trust are enforceable
Section 11 of the Act provides cases in which specific performance of contract connected with trust
are enforceable and read as under.
1. Except as otherwise provided in the Act, specific performance of a contract shall be enforced
when the act agreed to be done is in the performance wholly or partly of a trust.
2. A contract made by a trustee over his powers or in breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.
In the case of MK Usman Koya versus Saneha, [2003, Kerala High Court] the Kerala High Court held that
in a contract where no date for performance was final, the period of limitation would start from the
date on which the plaintiff comes to know that the other party was refusing performance.
Section 14 Contracts Not Specifically Enforceable

Section 14 of the Act provides for contracts that cannot be specifically enforced.
“The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:—
(a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of a contract by the provisions
of Section 20;
(b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty that the court
cannot supervise;
(c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court
cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms, and
(d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.”
In Zubamessa versus Davagher, AIR 1936 Mad 664, it was held that if a contract requires continuous
acts and involves watching of those acts by the court, the same cannot be specifically enforced. In
Gobinda versus Nanda, 18 Cal WN 689, it was held that if a contract is unlawful and requires the sale
of the property and if a departmental inquiry is hushed up, the same cannot be specifically enforced.
Section 20 Substituted Performance of Contract

“Substituted performance of a contract—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), and, except as otherwise agreed upon by the
parties, where the contract is broken due to non-performance of promise by any party, the party who
suffers, by such breach shall have the option of substituted performance through a third party or by his
agency, and, recover the expenses and other costs incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party
committing such breach.

(2) No substituted performance of the contract under sub-section (1) shall be undertaken unless the
party who suffers such breach has given a notice in writing, of not less than thirty days, to the party
in breach calling upon him to perform the contract within such time as specified in the notice, and on
his refusal or failure to do so, he may get the same performed by a third party or by his own agency:
The party who suffers such breach shall not be entitled to recover the expenses and costs under sub-
section (1) unless he has got the contract performed through a third party or by his agency.
Where the party suffering breach of contract has got the contract performed through a third party or
by his own agency after giving notice under sub-section (1), he shall not be entitled to claim relief of
specific performance against the party in breach.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the party who has suffered a breach of contract from claiming
compensation from the party in breach.”
Requirements for the Applicability of Section 20

1. There should be a valid contract.
2. The other party is not willing and thus has refused to perform its part of the contract.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to the substituted performance of a contract through a third party and to
recover the expenses from the party at the breach. The suffering party must provide a notice of
thirty days, in writing to the party at breach, for performing its part. If the party at breach refuses
or fails to do so, the suffering party shall get it done by a third party and then the expenses shall
be borne by the party at breach.
4. The suffering party is at liberty to claim compensation for breach of contract from the party at the
breach.
Section 6 Personal Bars to Relief

Section 16 of the Act provides for circumstances when a contract cannot be specifically enforced in
favour of a person.
“Personal bars to relief—Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person—
(a) who has obtained substituted performance of contract under Section 20; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates any essential term of, the contract that on
his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or wlilfully acts at variance with,
or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract; or
(c) who fails to 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, other than terms of the
performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation: For the purposes of clause (c)—
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually
tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the
court;
(ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract
according to its true construction.”
Burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part
of contract. In Sandhyarani versus Sudharani, AIR 1978 SC 537: 1978 (2) SCC 116: 1978 (2) SCR 839, it
was held that “in the plaint, the plaintiff must allege that he was ready and willing to perform his part
of contract from the date of agreement till the date of institution of the suit.”

In JP Builders versus A Ramadas Rao, JT 2010 (12) SC 588: (2010) 12 SCALE 400: 2010 (8) SLT 546, it was
held that “Section 16(c) of the Act mandates ‘readiness and willingness’ on part of the plaintiff and it
is the condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. In a suit for specific
performance, the plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous readiness and willingness to perform
the contract on his part from the date of the contract.”
In Motilal Jain versus Ramdasi Devi, (2006) 6 SCC 420: AIR 2000 SC 2408: JT 2000 (8) SC 59: 2005 (5)
SCALE 232, it was held that “averment as to readiness and willingness in a plaint has been held to be
sufficient if the plaint, read as whole, clearly indicates that the plaintiff was always and is still ready
and willing to fulfil his part of the obligations. Such averment is not a mathematical formula capable
of being expressed only in certain specific word or term.”
Non-performance or Violation of an Essential Term

The following grounds would prevent a plaintiff from enforcing specific performance.
y The plaintiff’s incapacity to perform.
y Where the plaintiff violates any essential term of the contract.
y Where the plaintiff acts in fraud.
y Where the plaintiff wilfully acts at variance.
Section 15 Who may obtain specific performance

Section 15 of the Act entitles the following persons to obtain specific performance of contract.
“Who may obtain specific performance—Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the specific
performance of a contract may be obtained by—
(a) any party thereto;
(b) the representative in interest or the principal of any party thereto:
Provided that where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a material
ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest shall not be assigned,
his representative in interest or his principal shall not be entitled to specific performance of the
contract, unless such party has already performed his part of the contract, or the performance
thereof by his representative in interest, or his principal, has been accepted by the other party;
(c) where the contract is a settlement on marriage or a compromise of doubtful rights between
members of the same family, any person beneficially entitled thereunder;
(d) where the contract has been entered into by a tenant for life in the due exercise of a power, the
remainderman;
(e) a reversioner in possession, where the agreement is a covenant entered into with his predecessor
in title and the reversioner is entitled to the benefit of the such covenant;
(f) a reversioner in the remainder, where the agreement is such a covenant, and the reversioner is
entitled to the benefit thereof and will sustain material injury because of its breach;
(fa) when a limited liability partnership has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes
amalgamated with another limited liability partnership, the new limited liability partnership which
arises out of the amalgamation.
(g) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated with
another company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;

(h) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract for the
purposes of the company, and the terms of the incorporation, the company warrant such contract:
Provided that the company has accepted the contract and has communicated such acceptance to
the other party to the contract.”
In Ahmedhoy Habibhbhoyv versus Sir Dinshaw M Petit, 11 Bom LR 544, the court states that according
to Section 37 of the Contract Act, the parties to contract, as a general rule, need to perform their
respective promises, and therefore, specific performance may be obtained by any party to the contract.
In case of sale of property, only the parties to contract can be made parties to the suit.
In Khwaja Muhammad Khan versus Husaini Begum, ILR (1910) 32 All 410 (PC), there was an agreement
between the father of boy and the father of girl, whereby it was held by the Privy Council that the boy’s
father’s promise in favour of the girl was held to been forceable. In TM Balakrishna Mudaliar versus M
Satyanarayan Rao, AIR 1993 SC 2449: 1993 SCR (2) 888, it was held that a contract of right to repurchase
was not personal but it is assignable. An assignee falls within the meaning of representative in interest
as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 15 to acquire a valid title to claim specific performance.
Section 19 – Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title
Section 19 of the Act provides as under.
“Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title—Except as otherwise
provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against—
(a) either party thereto;
(b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a
transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original
contract;
(c) any person claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract and known to the
plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant;
(ca) when a limited liability partnership has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes
amalgamated with another limited liability partnership, the new limited liability partnership
which arises out of the amalgamation.
(d) when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated with
another company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;
(e) when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a contract
for the purpose of the company and such contract is warranted by the terms of the
incorporation, the company:
Provided that the company has accepted the contract and communicated such acceptance to
the other party to the contract.”
In Vimala Ammal versus Suseela, AIR 1991 Mad 209: (1990) 2 Mad LJ 127, it was held that in a suit for
specific performance of sale agreement, the subsequent purchaser of the property is a necessary party
and unless he is impleaded, the decree is a nullity and cannot be executed against him. Thus, valid
title to the suit property would remain with the subsequent purchaser and he cannot be dispossessed
pursuant to the said decree.
In KS Abraham versus Chandy Rosamma, AIR 1989 Ker 167, it was held that the specific performance
can be declared not merely against a party to the contract but also against a person claiming under
the title which, though prior to the agreement and about which plaintiff was aware of, might have been
displaced by defendant.

In RK Mohammad Ubaidullah versus Hajee C Abdul Wahab, AIR 2001 SC 1658: 2000 (6) SCC 402: 2000
(5) SCALE 186: 2000 (2) Cur LJ 339, in the case of a bona fide purchaser in good faith for value without
notice of original contract between persons in actual possession and the owner of the property, it was
held by the Supreme Court that in order to establish his bona fides such purchaser must show that he
had made appropriate enquiries.
Section 20A Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project

Section 20A, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2018, reads as follows.
“Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project—(1) No injunction shall be
granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project
specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the
progress or completion of such infrastructure project.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, Section 20B and clause (ha) of Section 41, the
expression “infrastructure project” means the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors
specified in the Schedule.
(2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of
infrastructure projects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in
the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure
Sub-Sectors.
(3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as
may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period
of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and
if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions
aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree
that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification
or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that
notification.”
Special Courts for Infrastructure Projects

Section 20B, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2018, reads as follows.
“Special Courts—The State Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court,
shall designate, by notification published in the Official Gazette, one or more Civil Courts as Special
Courts, within the local limits of the area to exercise jurisdiction and to try a suit under this Act in
respect of contracts relating to infrastructure projects.”
Time Limit for Disposal of Matter

Section 20C, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2018, reads as follows.
“Expeditious disposal of suits—Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908), a suit filed under the provisions of this Act shall be disposed of by the court within
a period of twelve months from the date of service of summons to the defendant:
Provided that the said period may be extended for a further period not exceeding six months in
aggregate after recording reasons in writing for such extension by the court.”

Section 14A – Power of Court to Engage Experts
Section 14A, as substituted by the Amendment Act, 2018, reads as follows.
“Power of court to engage experts.—(1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions
contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in any suit under this Act, where the court
considers it necessary to get expert opinion to assist it on any specific issue involved in the suit, it
may engage one or more experts and direct to report to it on such issue and may secure attendance
of the expert for providing evidence, including production of documents on the issue.
(2) The court may require or direct any person to give relevant information to the expert or to
produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents, goods or other property for his inspection.
(3) The opinion or report given by the expert shall form part of the record of the suit; and the court,
or with the permission of the court any of the parties to the suit, may examine the expert personally
in open court on any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his opinion or report, or as to
his opinion or report, or as to the manner in which he has made the inspection.
(4) The expert shall be entitled to such fee, cost or expense as the court may fix, which shall be
payable by the parties in such proportion, and at such time, as the court may direct.”
Chapter III Rectification of Instruments
Section 26 - When instrument may be ratified

Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Chapter III), provides remedy for rectification of instruments.
Instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is or purports to be created,
transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or recorded [Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act].
However, instrument does not include Articles of Association.
Application of Section 26—In Joseph John Peter Sandy versus Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, AIR 2013 SC
2028: 2013 (3) SCALE 328: 2013 (3) SCC 801: 2013 (2) SCR 368, it was held that Section 26 of the Act
has a limited application, and is applicable only where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud
or mutual mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an
instrument. Such rectification is permissible only by the parties to the instrument.
Essential requirement for Rectification—For the applicability of section 26, following conditions has
to be fulfilled:
y There must be a genuine and perfectly unobjectionable contract between the parties which is not
the same to the one in writing.
y The written contact or instrument could not reflect the real intention of the parties.
y There must be fraud or mutual mistake.
y Within 3 years from the date of discovery of fraud oe mutual mistake, approached the court to grant
a discretionary relief by way of ratification.
In State of Karnataka versus KK Mohandas, (2007) 6 SCC 484: 2007 (8) SCR 697, it was held that
“rectification of written contract, in absence of plea of mutual mistake or fraud, such relief is not
permissible”.
Who can seek for Ratification

Either party to the contract or instrument, or his representatives in interest can sue for ratification of
instrument to protect his rights by proving the mistaken expression of the agreement.

Chapter IV Rescission of Contract
Chapter IV of the Act consisting of Sections 27 to 30 lays down provisions relating to rescission of
contract, and thus, constitutes a bar to its performance by either party to the contract.
Section 27(1) states the circumstances when rescission is available.
(a) Where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff
(b) Where the contract is unlawful for causes not apparent on its face and the defendant is more to
blame
Section 27(2) states the circumstances when rescission may be refused.
(a) The plaintiff loses his right to rescind when on becoming aware of his right he chooses to ratify
the contract.
(b) The right of rescission is also lost when the position of the parties has been altered to an extent
that they cannot be put back to its original status.
(c) When the rights of the third parties have intervened, rescission cannot be allowed to the prejudice
of such rights.
(d) Rescission is not allowed where the plaintiff is seeking rescission of only a part of the contract
and the part is not severable from the rest of the contract.
Section 28
Section 28 additionally gives the right to the vendor or lessor to seek rescission of decree in the same
suit, when after the suit for specific performance of contract decreed, the plaintiff fails to pay the
purchase money or rent within prescribed period.
Chapter V Cancellation of Instrument

“Cancellation” is a term often used interchangeably with Rescission. Whereas only a document can be
cancelled, any agreement—whether oral or written—can be rescinded. Cancellation is distinguishable
from reformation, which is an action by a court to enforce a document after its terms have been
reframed in accordance with the intent of the parties, in that cancellation abrogates the duties of
the parties under the instrument. Chapter V of the Act consisting of Sections 31 to 33 lays down the
provisions which deal with cancellation of instruments.
For Section 31 to apply, the following conditions should be fulfilled.
y The written instrument in question must be either void or voidable as against the plaintiff
y The plaintiff must have reasonable apprehension that if the instrument left outstanding , it may
cause serious injury to the plaintiff.
In view of the circumstances of the case, the court should consider it reasonable and proper to
administer the protective and preventive justice asked for
If these conditions are satisfied, the reliefs that can be given are:
(i) adjudging the instrument as void or voidable;
(ii) ordering it to be delivered up and cancelled.
Chapter VI Declaratory Decree

Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, consisting of Sections 34 and 35, deals with declaratory
decree and its effect. Section 34 enables a person to have his right or legal character declared by
the court of law. It was held in Devkali versus Kedar Nath, (1992) ILR 39 Cal 704 that Section 34 does

not sanction every form of declaration, but, only a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to any legal
character or to any right as to any property. Section 34 of the Act provides for “a suit against any person
denying or interested to deny the plaintiff’s title to the legal character or right to any property.” In
Jagtu Mal versus Lakshman Das, 157 IC 523, it was held that mere apprehension existing in the mind
of plaintiff does not give him any right to bring a suit for declaration. This section not only inflicts
burden on the plaintiff to prove that he is entitled to the legal character or right to property, but also to
convince the court that the defendant has denied or is interested to deny that legal character or right
of the plaintiff. In Qabool Singh versus Board of Revenue, AIR 1978 All 58, it was held that the plaintiff
must show subsisting right not only on the date of the suit but also on the date of decree.
In State of MP versus Khan Bahadur Bhiwandiwala and Co, AIR 1971 MP 65, the court observed that in
order to obtain the relief of declaration, the plaintiff must establish the following.
1. The plaintiff was at the time of the suit entitled to any legal character or any right to any property
2. The defendant had denied or was planning or was interested in denying the character or the title
of the plaintiff
3. The declaration asked for should be the same as the declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to
a right.
4. The plaintiff was not in a position to claim a further relief than a bare declaration of his title denied
by the defendant.
In Ram Saran and versus Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685: (1973) 2 SCC 60, it was held that simpliciter suit
for mere declaration of title without claiming consequential relief is not maintainable. The rationale
behind inserting such proviso to Section 34 of the Act has been categorically stated in Balakrishna
Aggarwala versus State of Assam, AIR 1994 NOC 209 (Gau) wherein it was held that “the object of
the proviso to the Section 34 is to prevent multiplicity of suits by preventing a person from getting a
mere declaration of right in one suit and then seeking in another suit the remedy, without which the
declaration would be useless and which could have been obtained in the first suit itself.”
In J Jayalalithaa versus Nakheerangopal, AIR 2009 NOC 853 (Mad), it was held that the relief of
declaration falls outside the scope of Section 34, even so the power of court to grant the declaration
of a civil nature under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not barred.
Declaratory Decree - A Discretion of Court

The Supreme Court in American Exp Bank Ltd versus Calcutta Steel Co, (1993) 1 SCJ 269, has held
that the declaration of the rights or status is one of the discretion of the court under Section 34 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The grant or refusal of the relief of declaration and injunction under the
provision of that Act is discretionary, the plaintiff cannot claim the relief as of right. It has to be granted
according to sound principles of law and in debito justitiae.
Scope of Declaratory Remedy

In Narain versus Sidhnath, ILR (1920) 2 Cal 443, the Supreme Court has explained the wide scope of
declaratory remedy, and has stated that “Section 34 does not sanction every kind of declaration but
only a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property.
At the same time in order to enable the plaintiff to get a declaration, it is only necessary now for him
to show that he has some legal character or some right to property and that his opponent is denying
or is interested to deny his title to such character or right. It is not necessary for him to show that he
has a right to some consequential relief which he might have claimed at the same time or which is

preparatory to his obtaining relief in other courts. If there is a cloud cast on his title or legal character,
he is entitled to seek the assistance of the court to dispel it by a declaratory decree provided he is not
in position to ask for any other relief consequent to the declaration prayed for.”
Sine Qua Non for Seeking Relief under Section 34

1. The plaintiff is entitled to get a legal character at the time of the suit; or to any right as to property,
or as to entitlement to property on family partition
2. The defendant has denied those or he is interested in denying that character or right of the
plaintiff
3. The plaintiff is not in a position to ask for any other consequential relief upon the declaration
Effect of Declaration
Section 35 of the Act lays down that a declaration made under Section 34 is binding only—
1. on the parties to the suit
2. on persons claiming through them respectively, e.g., reversioners, widows
3. where any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for whom, if in existence at the date of the
declaration, such parties would be trustees
Period of Limitation Prescribed for Suits Relating to Declarations
Description of Suit Period of Limitation Time from which Period Began to Run
Article 56 - To declare the forgery of an Three Years When the issue or the registration
instrument issued or registered becomes known to the plaintiff
Article 57 - To obtain a declaration that an Three Years When the alleged adoption becomes
alleged adoption is invalid, or never, in fact, took known to the plaintiff
place
Article 58 - To obtain any other declaration Three Years When the right to sue first accrues
Part III – Preventive Relief

Part III of the Act, namely, Preventive Relief, consists of Chapters VII and VIII, which lay down the
provisions dealing with injunctions generally and perpetual injunctions, respectively. Lord Halsbury
defined injunction as a judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a
particular act or thing. It is a judicial order restraining a person from beginning or continuing an action
threatening to or invading the legal right of another, or compelling a person to carry out a certain act.
Characteristics of an Injunction
y A judicial process
y The relief obtained thereby is a restraint or prevention
y The act prevented or restrained is wrongful
y It acts in personam
y It does not run with the property
y It is granted at the discretion of the court

Kinds of Injunction
y Preventive Injunction
y Mandatory Injunction
y Temporary injunction
Temporary Injunction
y It continues until a specified time or until further order of court.
y It may be granted at any stage of the court proceeding.
y Its procedure is governed by the rules laid down in Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
y No interim injunction can be granted where permanent injunction is not sought for. [Gujarat Electricity
Board versus Mahesh Kumar and Co., AIR 1982 Guj 289: (1982) 2 Guj LR 479].
y Temporary injunction, being an equitable remedy founded on the principles of equity, justice and
good conscience, a court, clothed with the jurisdiction to grant such relief, is required to scrutinize
actions of an aggrieved party with pragmatic approach. (Kantilal versus Vidhyadhar - Rajasthan High
Court - Jodhpur Bench)
y If the case is not covered on the grounds of Order XXXIX, Temporary Injunction can be granted in the
exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [Manohar Lal versus
Seth Hira Lal, AIR 1962 SC 527: (1962) SCR Supp (1) 450]
Grounds for Granting Temporary Injunction

y The plaintiff must establish prima facie matter
y An irreparable injury would result if the injunction were refused
y The plaintiff must come with clean hands as the conduct of the applicant seeking an injunction is
one of the utmost factor. [Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd versus The Coca Cola Co, AIR 1995 SC 2372: 1995
SCC (5) 545]
y The balance of convenience requires that an injunction should be granted and it has to be in favour
of the applicant and against the defendant
In Mathew Philips versus PO Koshy, AIR 1966 Mys 74, it was held that “... if the legal right, which is alleged
to have been infringed, is doubtful, the mere existence of the doubt is enough to refuse temporary
injunction. The party, seeking the aid of the court for an injunction, must show that the act complained
of is in violation of his right or is at least an act, which, if carried into effect, will necessarily result in
a violation of the right.”
In Dalpat Kumar versus Prahlad Singh, AIR 1993 SC 276 : (1992) 2 MLJ 49 (SC): 1992 (1) UJ 501 (SC), the
apex court, while considering the question of balance of convenience, observed that the court, while
exercising discretion in granting or refusing injunction, should exercise sound judicial discretion and
should attempt to weigh substantial mischief or injury likely to be caused to the parties; and in the
case of refusal of injunction, should compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the opposite
party, if the injunction is granted.
Perpetual Injunction
1. It can be granted only by a decree at the hearing and upon the merit of the suit
2. It finally decides the rights of the parties

3. It forbids the defendant from asserting a right or committing an act which would be contrary to
the rights of the plaintiff.
Defined in Section37(1) Defined in Section 37(2)
i. It can be granted at any stage of the court i. It can only be granted after the plaintiff has
proceeding established his right to it at the trial
ii. It is passed by an order it is passed by a ii. It lasts till the pendency of the suit it is a
decree final determination of right.
iii. It is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, iii. It is governed under Sections 38 to 42 of the
1908 Specific Relief Act, 1963
In M Hari Narayana versus P Swaroopa Rani, AIR 2009 NOC 257 (AP), it was held that where an
applicant seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendant suppressed the material fact
pertaining to the transaction with the defendant, the court, while dismissing the contention of the
applicant stated that the plaintiff must come with clean hands, and thus, held that the plaintiff was
not entitled to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. In Bharat Aluminium Co versus Kaiser
Aluminium Technical Services Inc, (2012) 9 SCC 552, it was held that the interim relief claimed must be
a part of a substantive relief to which the plaintiff’s cause of action entitled him. Hence, a suit only to
claim interim injunction is not maintainable.
Perpetual Injunction when Granted

1. There must be a legal right, express or implied, in favour of the applicant
2. Such right must be violated or there must be a threatened invasion
3. Such a right should be an existing one
4. The case should be fit for the exercise of court’s discretion
5. It should not fall in the sphere of restrictions mentioned in Section 41 of the Act.
In Raja Maheshwar Dayal Seth versus Yuvraj Dutt Singh, AIR 1946 Oudh 42, it was held that where the
inconvenience likely to result from granting injunction is greater than that which is likely to arise from
withholding it, the injunction should not be granted.
In Municipal Board versus Abdul Hammed, 1981 All LJ 376, it was held that where the plaintiff fails to
establish his legal right to the property or his legal right to continue possession, he cannot be granted
perpetual injunction against the owner or the manager of the property.
When Positive Injunction is Coupled with Negative Injunction

Section 42 of the Act lays down that where a contract contains both affirmative and negative
agreements, although it may be beyond the power of the court to compel specific performance of the
affirmative part, a party may be restrained from committing a breach of the negative part, provided
that the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract.
Sine Qua Non for Applicability of Section 42
1. The contract must contain two agreements—affirmative agreement to do a certain act; negative
agreement not to do a certain act
2. Negative agreement must be capable of being separated from the rest of the contract
3. The applicant must have performed his part of the contract; he should approach the court with
clean hands

In Gujarat Bottling Co Ltd versus Coca Cola Co, AIR 1995 SC 2372: (1995) 5 SCC 545, it was held that an
injunction to enforce a negative covenant would be refused if it would indirectly compel the employee
either to idleness or to serve the employer.
Refusal of Injunctive Relief

Section 41 of the Act lays down the circumstances when perpetual injunction will be refused by the
court. In Sangram Singh versus State of UP, AIR 2010 All 65, it was held that no injunction can be issued
restraining any person or authority from lodging an FIR. A temporary injunction cannot be granted
where permanent is not possible.
In Premji Ratansey Shah versus Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 547: JT 1994 (6) SC 585, it was held that
no injunction can be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession as
against the true owner.
In Pradeep Oil Corpn versus Union of India, AIR 2012 Del 56, it was held that even if the dispossession
was wrongful, the right and entitlement of the corporation to continue in possession had come to an
end. Thus, no injunction could be granted.
Under the following circumstances, an injunction cannot be granted.
y Stay of pending judicial proceedings — According to Section 41(a) of the Act, an injunction cannot be
granted to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of
the suit on which an injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity
of proceedings.
y Stay of proceedings in a court not subordinate — According to Section 41(b) of the Act, an injunction
cannot be granted to restrain any person either from instituting or from prosecuting any proceeding
in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. In Capt Anil Kumar Singh
versus Javleen Rosha, AIR 2000 Del 38: 2000 (102) Comp Cas 162: (1999) 79 DLT 338, it was held that
the applicant is not entitled to seek injunction with respect to proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
In Mohamed Ameer versus Hafeez Khan, AIR 1990 Kant 32 (34): ILR 1989 Kar 1423: 1989 (1) KLJ 348, it
was held that Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with the situation when injunction
could be refused. It states that injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting
or prosecuting any proceedings in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought.
y Restraining any person from applying to legislative body — As per Section 41(c) of the Act, an
injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body.
y Stay of proceedings in a criminal matter — Section 41(d) - In Essaappa Chettiar (in re), AIR 1942 Mad
756, it was held that “as a matter of policy, the courts cannot issue an injunction to stay proceedings
in any criminal matter”. In Rajkumari versus Bumasundar, 25 Cal 610, it was held that “The High court,
however, has a power to stay criminal proceedings in the court of magistrate until the disposal of civil
proceedings in which the issue of criminal proceeding is to be decided.”
y No issue of injunction to prevent a breach of contract — Section 41(e) states that if the contract is of
such a nature that the same cannot be specifically enforced, a court will not grant an injunction to
prevent the breach of such contract. In NW Ry Administration versus NW Ry Union, AIR 1933 Lah 203,
it was held that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced either by the master
or servant. Therefore, a person dismissed from service cannot obtain an injunction alleging that the
dismissal is wrongful, and the employer should be restrained from dismissing him.

y To prevent an act on an unreasonable ground of nuisance — Under Section 41(f), the court will refuse
to grant injunction to prevent an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance. In
other words, an injunction ought not to be granted to prevent a contingent nuisance i.e. to prevent
an act which may or may not be nuisance according to circumstances. The court will not exercise its
jurisdiction to grant an injunction unless there has been an actual nuisance or the probability is so
great that if not restrained it must inevitably result in a nuisance.
y To prevent continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced — Section 41(g) states that
where the plaintiff has assented to the continuous breach of an obligation, he cannot be allowed to
complain about the same and obtain an injunction to restrain the defendant. It is a settled law that
a person, who seeks equity, must do equity. The apex court in Canara Bank versus Debasis Das, AIR
2003 SCW 1561 held as: “A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes
to the court with false claims, cannot be plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise
equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in fair and equitable manner.”
y To prevent multiplicity of proceedings — The purpose of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act is
to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, no injunction can be granted in cases where an equally
efficacious relief would put the plaintiff in the same position in which he would have been, had he
not asked for relief of injunction. The question whether an equally efficacious relief can be obtained
by any other usual mode of proceeding within the meaning of Section 41(h) of the Act, has to be
determined in each case on its facts and circumstances.
y To prevent delay in infrastructure project — There is a bar to the grant of injunctions under Section
20A read with Section 41(ha) of the Act, involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project
specified in the Schedule, where granting of injunction would cause impediment or delay in progress
or completion of such project. The Delhi High court in Ravi Gupta versus GNCTD, CS (OS) 500/2019
dated 15.01.2020 at para 16(G), interpreting the scope of Section 20A, has proceeded to hold that the
intent behind Section 20A was to ensure that the infrastructure projects are not delayed on account
of pendency of court proceedings or orders passed therein.
y When the conduct of plaintiff disentitles him to be the assistance of the court — Section 41(i)
states: where the plaintiff has committed any wrong against the defendant, he is not permitted to
claim injunction. When the plaintiff is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation against the defendant, he
loses his right to claim injunction against the defendant.
y When the plaintiff is stranger to court proceedings [Section 41(j)] — The High Court in Sanjay Chugh
versus Ram Kishan [CM Appl. 50920/2019] decided on 30.03.2022 observed that “if the plaintiff is a
complete stranger, having no personal interest with respect to the grievance expressed in the suit,
being “the matter” in the suit, no doubt, Section 41(j) operates as a proscription against grant of
injunction.”
Mandatory Injunction
Section 39 of the Act says that when, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel
the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may, in its discretion,
grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of requisite
acts.
In Baladin Yadav versus Ramdulare, AIR 1990 All 20, it was held that “in the matter of granting relief
of mandatory injunction, the grant of relief is to be judged not on the footing alone that the action of
party sued against is lawful, but on the other considerations, namely, whether the plaintiff could be
adequately compensated or whether the grant of injunction was necessary to do justice or not.”

A mandatory injunction forbids the defendant to permit the continuance of a wrongful state of things
that already exists at the time when the injunction is issued. The purpose of mandatory injunction is
to restore a wrongful state of things to their former rightful order.
In Shamnugger Jute Factory versus Ram Narain, ILR 14 Gal 184, it was held: “The court will weigh the
amount of substantial mischief done or threatened to the plaintiff and compare it with that of the
defendant in the event of grant of injunction.”
FACTS AT GLANCE
y The Specific Relief Act, 1963, came into force on 1 March 1964.
y The Act consists of three parts, which are classified into eight chapters consisting of 42 sections.
y Specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights and not for the
mere purpose of enforcing a penal law.
y The Act is not exhaustive in nature.
y The Act provides relief in personam and not in rem.
y The essence of Section 5 of the Act is that whoever proves the better title is a person entitled to
possession.
y The purpose behind Section 6 of the Act is to restrain a person from using force and to dispossess
a person without his consent otherwise than in due process of law.
y The doctrine of specific performance of contract derives its essence from the Ninth Law Commission
Report, 1958.
y The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, came into force on 1 October 2018.
y Prior to the Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, the court granted specific performance as an
exception rather than a general rule.
y Section 9 of the Act provides that except as provided in Chapter II, Sections 9 to 25, all defences
open under the law of contract shall be open to the defendant, where any relief is claimed in respect
of a contract.
y The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, shall apply retrospectively to all actions, i.e., even to an
action which may have preceded its enforcement, or be based on a claim of an anterior date.
y Section 26 states that the relief of rectification of a written contract, in the absence of the plea of
mutual mistake or fraud, is not permissible.
y Section 27 lays down the provision of rescission and it constitutes a bar to its performance by either
of the party to the contract.
y Section 34 enables a person to have his right or legal character declared by the court of law, and
thus, get rid of the cloud cast on his legal character or right.
y Section 34 does not sanction every kind of declaration but only a declaration that the plaintiff is
entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property.
y Injunction is of two kinds—preventive and mandatory. Preventive injunction is further classified into
two sub-kinds—temporary and perpetual.
y Grounds for granting injunction - prima facie case; balance of convenience; mischief.

Landmark Judgements
Suit for Possession under Section 6

Sadashiv Shyama Sawant Through LRs versus Anita Anant Sawant
2010 (3) SCC 385: 2010 (2) Mh LJ 805: 2010 (2) SCR 1070: 2010 (2) SCALE 530
Decided on: 22-02-2010; Bench: Justices P Sathasivam, RM Lodha
Facts: The respondent, Anita Anant Sawant filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, against the appellants and their predecessors-in-title. The property in dispute, i.e.,
house No. 97 was earlier purchased by the plaintiff which was in possession of Pandurang Vichareat
at the time of the purchase and vacated later on. Thereafter, the whole belonged to the plaintiff. Later
on, she let out southern side one room along with hall adjacent to Padavi and northern side room of
hall to one P.V. Warik, who was forcibly dispossessed by the contesting defendants. The plaintiff filed a
suit for the recovery of possession of the suit property of which her tenant was forcibly dispossessed.
Issues:
1. Whether can a tenant be a necessary party?
2. Whether the landlord can maintain the suit wherein the tenant was dispossessed by the one other
than the owner?
Held: Possession in law follows right to possession. The language of Section 6(1) of the Act specifically
states that the suit to recover possession under the said provision could be filed by the person who is
dispossessed or any person claiming through him. Section 6(1) uses the word “dispossessed” and “he
or any person claiming through him”. A person is said to have been dispossessed when he has been
deprived of his possession; such deprivation may be of actual possession or legal possession.
Dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession of the landlord. According to Section 6 of the
Act, the suit to recover possession could be filed by the person who is dispossessed or any person
claiming through him. As a matter of law, the dispossession of tenant by a third party is dispossession
of the landlord. Where the tenant is thrown out forcibly from the tenanted premises by a trespasser, the
landlord has implied right of entry in order to recover possession (for himself and his tenant). Lastly,
it was said that a landlord who holds the possession through his tenant is competent to maintain suit
under Section 6 and recover possession from a trespasser who has forcibly dispossessed his tenant.
—————
Possessory Title is a ‘Good Title’

Somnath Berman versus Dr SP Raju
AIR 1970 SC 846: 1970 (2) SCR 869: 1969 (3) SCC 129: 1970 (1) SCJ 889
Decided on: 16-10-1969; Bench: Justices KS Hegde, and JC Shah
Facts: A suit for the possession of immovable property was filed. The suit property was in possession
of the plaintiff from 1930 to 1945. In 1946 the defendant trespassed on the property. The plaintiff
proved that he was in possession for the said period, but failed to prove his title on the property.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession?
Held: The court was of the view that possession of the plaintiff prior to 1945 is a good title against
all but the true owner and mere trespassing by the defendant cannot defeat the plaintiff’s lawful

possession by ousting him from the suit property. It was observed that possessory title is a good title
as against everybody other than the lawful owner and possession of the plaintiff is sufficient evidence
of title as owner against the defendant.
—————
Supreme Court Guidelines
Addition of Parties: Code of Civil Procedure

Razia Begum versus Sahebzadi Anwar Begum
AIR 1958 SC 886: 1959 SCR 1111: 1958 (2) MLJ 193: 1958 (36) Mys LJ 671
Dated: May 23, 1958; Bench: Justices Bhuvneshwar P Sinha, Syed Jafferimam and JL Kapur.
y That the question of addition of parties under rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure,
is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of judicial discretion which has to be
exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may
raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in
other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in Section 115 of the Code.
y That in a suit relating to a property, so that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct
interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of litigation.
y Where the subject-matter of litigation, is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule
of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that
by adding that party, it would be in a better position eventually and completely to adjudicate upon
the controversy.
y The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the
statutory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act.
y In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed
for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear
proof apart from the admission.
y The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as the controversy in the instant
case, affects not only the parties actually before the court, but generations to come, and in view of
that consideration, the rule of ‘present interest’, as evolved by case law relating to disputes about
property does not apply with full force.
y The rule laid down in Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is
narrower in one sense and wider in another.
—————
Scope and Object of Specific Relief Act

Adhunik Steels Ltd versus Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt Ltd
(2007) 7 SCC 125: AIR 2007 SC 2563: 2007 (9) SCALE 126: JT 2007 (9) SC 147
Dated: July 10, 2007; Bench: Justices HK Sema, PK Balasubramanyan.
The Supreme Court explained the reliefs under the Act and their scope. “The remedies available under
the Act are as follows.

y The grant of an interlocutory injunction
y The appointment of a receiver
y The making of an order for the preservation, custody or sale of the property
y The securing of the amount in dispute”
Injunction is a form of specific relief. It is an order of a court requiring a party either to do a specific act
or acts or to refrain from doing a specific act or acts either for a limited period or without limit of time.
In relation to a breach of contract, the proper remedy against a defendant who acts in breach of his
obligations under a contract, is either damages or specific relief. The two principal varieties of specific
relief are: decree of specific performance and injunction (See David Bean on Injunctions).
The Specific Relief Act, 1963, was intended to be “An Act to define and amend the law relating to
certain kind of specific reliefs.” Specific Relief is relief in specie. It is a remedy which aims at the exact
fulfilment of an obligation.
According to Dr. Banerjee in his Tagore Law Lectures on Specific Relief, the remedy for the non-
performance of a duty are: (1) compensatory, (2) specific.
In the former, the court awards damages for breach of obligation. In the latter, it directs the party in
default to do or forbear from doing the very thing, which he is bound to do or forbear from doing. The
law of specific relief is said to be, in its essence, a part of the law of procedure, for, specific relief is
a form of judicial redress. Thus, the Specific Relief Act, 1963 purports to define and amend the law
relating to certain kinds of specific reliefs obtainable in civil courts. It does not deal with the remedies
connected with compensatory reliefs except as incidental and to a limited extent. The right to relief of
injunctions is contained in Part III of the Specific Relief Act.
- Section 36 provides that preventive relief may be granted at the discretion of the court by injunction-
temporary or perpetual.
- Section 38 indicates when perpetual injunctions are granted and Section 39 indicates when
mandatory injunctions are granted.
- Section 40 provides that damages may be awarded either in lieu of or in addition to injunctions.
- Section 41 provides for contingencies when an injunction cannot be granted.
- Section 42 enables, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41, particularly clause (e)
providing that no injunction can be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance
of which would not be specifically enforced, the granting of an injunction to perform a negative
covenant. Thus, the power to grant injunctions by way of specific relief is covered by the Specific
Relief Act, 1963.
—————
Plaintiff Needs to Prove Certain Things in a Suit for Specific Performance

Man Kaur (Dead) By LRs versus Hartar Singh Sangha
Civil Appeal Nos. 147-148 OF 2001: 2010 (10) SCC 512: 2010 (12) SCR 515:
2010 (10) SCALE 523: 2010 (96) AIC 245
Dated: October 5, 2010; Bench: Justices RV Raveendran, Aftab Alam
The Supreme Court emphasized that, in order to succeed in a suit for specific performance, the
plaintiff has to prove:
y That a valid agreement of sale was entered by the defendant in his favor and the terms thereof
y That the defendant committed a breach of the contract

y That he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the contract,
if a plaintiff has to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract,
that is, to perform his obligations in terms of the contract, necessarily he should step into the
witness box and give evidence that he has all along been ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract and subject himself to cross-examination on that issue.
A plaintiff cannot get examined in his place, his attorney holder who did not have personal knowledge
of the transaction or of his readiness and willingness. Readiness and willingness refer to the state of
mind and conduct of the purchaser, as also his capacity and preparedness. One without the other is
not sufficient. Therefore, a third party who has no personal knowledge, cannot give evidence about
such readiness and willingness, even if he is an attorney holder of the person concerned.
—————
Evidence to be Given in Respect of Personal Knowledge

Man Kaur (Dead) By LRs versus Hartar Singh Sangha
Civil Appeal Nos. 147-148 of 2001:
2010 (10) SCC 512: 2010 (12) SCR 515: 2010 (10) SCALE 523: 2010 (96) AIC 245
Dated: October 5, 2010; Bench: Justices RV Raveendran, Aftab Alam
The Supreme Court summarized the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters
involving personal knowledge:
An attorney holder who has signed the plaint and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge
of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the
filing of the suit.
If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of
attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions.
If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such act sand transactions and not the principal,
the attorney holder shall be examined, if those act sand trans actions have to be proved.
y The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by
the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal
knowledge.
y Where the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the
transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has
been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard
to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on businesses through
authorised managers/attorney holders or in case of persons residing abroad managing their affairs
through their attorney holders.
y Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal
has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent
attorney holder.
y Where different attorney holders had dealt with the matter at different stages of the transaction, if
evidence has to be led as to what transpired at those different stages, all the attorney holders will
have to be examined.
y Where the law requires or contemplates the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or
prove something with reference to his ‘state of mind’ or ‘conduct’, normally the person concerned

alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant on
the ground of his ‘bona fide’ need; and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show
his ‘readiness and willingness’ fall under this category. There is, however, a recognized exception to
this requirement. Where all the a airs of a party are completely managed, transacted, and looked
after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the
evidence of such attorney even with reference to bonafides or ‘readiness and willingness’. Examples
of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the a airs of his/her spouse, a son/
daughter exclusively managing the a airs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively
managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad.
—————
Legal Maxims
y He who seeks equity must do equity
y He who wants an equitable remedy must come to court with a trues tory and clean hands.
y Sine qua non
y Sine qua non is a Latin phrase which means ‘without which it could not be’.
y Act in personam
y Action in personam is a Latin term meaning ‘against a person’.
y Action in rem
y Action in rem is a Latin term which means ‘an action is taken against the property instead of the
owner’.
Objective Type Questions

1. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the product 2. What is true of the Specific Relief Act?
of:— (A) It is a procedural law
(A) 8th Report of the Law Commission of (B) It supplements the Code of Civil
India on Specific Relief on 1958 Procedure
(B) 9th Report of the Law Commission of (C) It is founded on English Law
India on Specific Relief of 1958 (D) All of the above
(C) 10th Report of the Law Commission of Ans. (D)
India on Specific Relief of 1958 All statements are true.
(D) None of the above SRA is a procedural law.
Ans. (B) SRA supplements the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the product of SRA founded on English Law.
9th Report of the Law Commission of India on 3. If a person is dispossessed without his
Specific Relief of 1958. consent of immovable property otherwise
The 9th Law Commission Report, 1958 sought than in due course of law, he may file a suit
to remove some of the weaknesses of Common to recover possession under Section 6 of the
Law that had been retained by the 1877 Act, Specific Relief Act within:
and suggested certain substantive, but mainly (A) three months from the date of
linguistic, changes to the legislation. dispossession
(B) six months from the date of dispossession

(C) twelve months from the date of (D) Three years from the date of
dispossession dispossession.
(D) three years from the date of Ans. (A)
dispossession. If any person is dispossessed of immovable
Ans. (B) property without his consent otherwise than
Suit for recovery of possession of immovable in due course of law, he may, by a suit, recover
property may be brought within six months from possession thereof, notwithstanding any other
the date of dispossession. title that may be set up in such suit, within a period
Section 6, Suit by person dispossessed of of six months from the date of dispossession,
immovable property.—(2) No suit under this Section 6.
Section shall be brought—(a) after the expiry of 6. Which of the following can be specifically
six months from the date of dispossession. enforced under Section 10 of the Specific
4. A defendant in a suit for recovery of Relief Act, 1963?
possession of immovable property, (A) Contingent contract
(A) Can take the plea of lawful title and (B) Formation of a partnership
in the alternative the plea of adverse (C) Chattel of special value
possession. (D) Deeds of separation
(B) Cannot take the plea of lawful title and Ans. (C)
in the alternative the plea of adverse 7. Which contract cannot be specifically
possession as the two are antithetical to enforced?
each other, (A) A contract which is in its nature
(C) Can take a plea “of lawful title and in Determinable
the alternative the plea of adverse (B) A contract which is so dependent on
possession and succeed on both. the personal qualifications of the parties
(D) Can take a plea of lawful title and in that the court cannot enforce specific
the alternative the plea of adverse performance of its material terms
possession and succeed on either. (C) Both (A) and (B)
Ans. (B) (D) A contract of sale of immovable property
Defendant in a suit for recovery of possession Ans. (C)
of immovable property take the plea of lawful Section 14(c) and (d), Contracts not specifically
title and in the alternative the plea of adverse enforceable.—The following contracts cannot be
possession as the two are antithetical to each specifically enforced, namely:—
other. [Section 6(1)] (C) a contract which is so dependent on the
5. If any person is dispossessed of immovable personal qualifications of the parties
property without his consent otherwise that the court cannot enforce specific
than in due course of law, he may, by a suit, performance of its material terms; and
recover possession thereof, notwithstanding (D) a contract which is in its nature
any other title that may be set up in such determinable.
suit, within a period of: 8. Whether specific performance of contract
(A) Six months from the date of can be enforced against a transferee of
dispossession. immovable property contracted to transfer?
(B) Three months from the date of (A) Yes
dispossession. (B) No
(C) One year from the date of dispossession. (C) Yes, only in certain circumstances

(D) None of the above Explanation—For the purposes of clause (c),—
Ans. (C) (i) where a contract involves the payment of
Specific performance of contract can be enforced money, it is not essential for the plaintiff
only in certain circumstances, against a transferee to actually tender to the defendant or to
of immovable property contracted to transfer. deposit in court any money except when
9. Which of the following facts is not correct so directed by the court;
under Section 14A of Specific Relief Act? (ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of,
(A) The Report of expert shall form part of or readiness and willingness to perform,
the record the contract according to its true
(B) The opinion of expert may not form part construction.
of the record 11. Which of the following Sections deals with
(C) The court may require or direct any Personal bars to the remedy of specific relief;
person to give relevant information to (A) 14
expert (B) 15
(D) The expert shall be entitled to such fee, (C) 16
cost or expense as the court may fix (D) 17
Ans. (B) Ans. (C)
Section 14A, Power of court to engage experts.— Section 16 of the Acts deals with Personal bars
(3) The opinion or report given by the expert to relief.
shall form part of the record of the suit; and the 12. The grant of decree of specific performance
court, or with the permission of the court any of for the court is:
the parties to the suit, may examine the expert (A) Discretionary
personally in open court on any of the matters (B) Mandatory
referred to him or mentioned in his opinion or (C) Arbitrary
report, or as to his opinion or report, or as to the (D) Obligatory
manner in which he has made the inspection. Ans. (A)
10. In a suit for specific performance of contract The grant of decree of specific performance for
for sale, the plaintiff should allege that the court is discretionary.
(A) he has been ready and willing to perform 13. Section 20A was inserted in to the Specific
his part of the contract Relief Act in respect of special provisions of
(B) he had been ready and willing to perform contracts which are:
his part of the contract (A) Infrastructure projects
(C) he has ready and willing to perform his (B) Land agreements
party of the contract (C) Mergers and Acquisitions
(D) he is ready and willing to perform his (D) None of these
part of the contract Ans. (A)
Ans. (A) Under Specific Relief Act Section 20A was inserted
Section 16(c), Personal bars to relief.—Specific in respect of special provisions of contracts which
performance of a contract cannot be enforced are Infrastructure projects.
in favour of a person—(c) who fails to prove that
14. Any suit filed under the provisions of the
he has performed or has always been ready and
Specific Relief Act, 1963 shall be disposed of
willing to perform the essential terms of the
by the Court within a period of _____________
contract which are to be performed by him, other
from the date of service of summons to the
than terms of the performance of which has been
defendant.
prevented or waived by the defendant.
(A) 6 months

(B) 9 months (a) either party or his representative in
(C) 12 months interest may institute a suit to have the
(D) 24 months instrument rectified; or
Ans. (C) (b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which
- Any suit filed under the provisions of the Specific any right arising under the instrument is
Relief Act, 1963 shall be disposed of by the Court in issue, claim in his pleading that the
within a period of twelve months from the date of instrument be rectified; or
service of summons to the defendant. (c) a defendant in any such suit as is
- Notwithstanding anything contained in the referred to in clause (b), may, in addition
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a suit to any other defence open to him, ask
filed under the provisions of this Act shall be for rectification of the instrument.
disposed of by the court within a period of twelve (2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other
months from the date of service of summons to instrument is sought to be rectified under
the defendant. [Section 20C] sub-section (1), the court finds that the
15. In a suit for specific performance of contract, instrument, through fraud or mistake,
in which compensation has not been claimed does not express the real intention of the
Fresh suit for compensation parties, the court may in its discretion,
(A) is maintainable direct rectification of the instrument so
(B) is barred as to express that intention, so far as
(C) is maintainable if filed with in limitation this can be done without prejudice to
(D) None of these rights acquired by third persons in good
Ans. (B) faith and for value.
Section 21, Power to award compensation in 17. Where a decree for specific performance of
certain cases.—(5) No compensation shall be a contract for sale of immovable property
awarded under this Section unless the plaintiff has been made and the purchaser within the
has claimed such compensation in his plaint: period allowed by the court does not pay the
Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed purchase money which the court has ordered
any such compensation in the plaint, the court him to pay:
shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to (A) The vendor may apply in the same suit
amend the plaint on such terms as may be just, in which the decree is made, to have the
for including a claim for such compensation. contract rescinded.
16. Mistake contemplated under Section 26 of (B) The purchaser may apply in the same suit
the Specific Relief Act is: in which the decree is made to have the
(A) Bilateral mistake contract rescinded and for a direction to
(B) Mutual mistake the vendor to refund the earnest money/
(C) Mistake in framing of the instrument advance consideration received till then
(D) All the above along with cost of the suit.
Ans. (D) (C) The vendor can forfeit the earnest
money.
Section 26(1) and (2), When instrument may be
(D) The vendor has to file a fresh suit for
rectified.—(1) When, through fraud or a mutual
recovery of purchase money.
mistake of the parties a contract or other
Ans. (A)
instrument in writing not being the articles of
Section 28(1), Rescission in certain circumstances
association of a company to which the Companies
of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable
Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies does not express
property, the specific performance of which has
their real intention, then—

been decreed.—(1) Where in any suit a decree for 20. As per Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act
specific performance of a contract for the sale 1963 no court shall make any such declaration
or lease of immovable property has been made in a case where
and the purchaser or lessee does not, within (A) Plaintiff is entitled to any legal character
the period allowed by the decree or such further (B) Plaintiff is entitled to any right as to any
period as the court may allow, pay the purchase property
money or other sum which the court has ordered (C) Plaintiff being able to seek further relief
him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the than a mere declaration of title, omits to
same suit in which the decree is made, to have do so
the contract rescinded and on such application (D) None above
the court may, by order, rescind the contract Ans. (C)
either so far as regards the party in default or
Proviso to Section 34, Discretion of court as to
altogether, as the justice of the case may require.
declaration of status or right—Provided that no
18. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, court shall make any such declaration where the
sanctions: plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a
(A) Every type of declaration mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
(B) Only a declaration of legal character
21. The general principles on which the perpetual
(C) Only a declaration of a right to property
injunctions could be granted are contained in
(D) A declaration of legal character or of a
........... of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
right to property
(A) Section 37
Ans. (D)
(B) Section 38
Section 34 sanctions declaration of legal character
(C) Section 39
or of a right to property.
(D) Section 40
Section 34, Discretion of court as to declaration
Ans. (B)
of status or right.—Any person entitled to any
General principles on which the perpetual
legal character, or to any right as to any property,
injunctions could be granted are contained in
may institute a suit against any person denying,
Section 38.
or interested to deny, his title to such character
or right, and the court may in its discretion make 22. To prevent a continuing breach in which the
therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and plaintiff has acquiesced, a court:
the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any (A) can grant perpetual injunction
further relief. (B) can grant mandatory injunction
(C) can grant prohibitory injunction
19. A declaratory decree passed under Section
(D) cannot grant injunction
34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 operates:
(E) None of the above
(A) Jus in rem
Ans. (D)
(B) Jus in personam
Section 41(g), Injunction when refused.—An
(C) Both (A) and (B) injunction cannot be granted—(g) to prevent
(D) None of these. a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has
Ans. (B) acquiesced.
Previous Years’ Questions

23. The obligation under the Specific Relief Act (D) none of the above
(A) is a right in rem Ans. (C) [Odisha JS (Pre.) 2011]
(B) is a right in personam - Right in rem is a Latin term which means
(C) both (A) and (B) “against a thing”.

Jus ad rem is a Latin term of the civil law which under this Section, nor shall any review of any
means “a right to a thing”. such order or decree be allowed.
Jus in personam means “a right against a specific 27. Which of the following Sections of the
person”. Specific Relief Act deals with recovery of
A right in rem is available against the whole world specific movable property?
but a right in personam is available against a (A) Section 5
particular individual only. (B) Section 7
Rights in rem are negative, while most rights in (C) Section 8
personam are positive. (D) Section 9
24. Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Ans. (B) [29th BJS (Pre.) 2016]
Relief may be granted Section 7 of the Act deals with Recovery of
(A) For enforcing individual civil rights specific movable property.
(B) For enforcing a Penal law 28. Statutory recognition of the principles of
(C) For enforcing both Civil law and a Penal equity in the Specific Relief Act is regarding
law (A) specific performance
(D) For enforcing public rights (B) injunction
Ans. (A) [MPJS Class-2 (Pre.) 2013, (Shift – I); (C) rectification and rescission
MPJS Class-2 Entry Level (Pre.) 2018, (D) All of the above
(Shift - I)] Ans. (D) [30th BJS (Pre.) 2018]
Section 4. Specific relief to be granted only
29. Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act,
for enforcing individual civil rights and not
1963, the defendant may plead his defence
for enforcing penal laws.—Specific relief can
under the
be granted only for the purpose of enforcing
(A) Law of Contracts
individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose
(B) Code of Civil Procedure
of enforcing a penal law.
(C) Transfer of Property Act
25. A suit of Possession under Section 5 of the (D) None of the above
Specific Relief Act, can be filed within Ans. (A) [HPJS (Pre.) 2016]
(A) 3 years Section 9. Defences respecting suits for relief
(B) 6 years based on contract.—Except as otherwise
(C) 9 years provided herein where any relief is claimed under
(D) 12 years this Chapter in respect of a contract, the person
Ans. (D) [Odisha JS (Pre.) 2011] against whom the relief is claimed may plead by
A suit of Possession under Section 5 of the way of defence any ground which is available to
Specific Relief Act, can be filed within twelve him under any law relating to contracts.
years.
30. A buys from B an original paintings of
26. An order or decree passed in a suit presented Picasso. B refuses to fulfill his promise. On
under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is what ground, A can specifically enforce the
(A) Appealable contract?
(B) Reviewable (A) Compensation is not an adequate
(C) Neither Appealable nor Reviewable remedy
(D) Appealable and Reviewable Both (B) He loves Picasso’s paintings
Ans. (C) [MPJS Class-2 (Pre.) 2013 (Shift – I)] (C) He wants to make his collections of
Section 6(3). Suit by person dispossessed of paintings rich
immovable property.—(3) No appeal shall lie from (D) None of the above
any order or decree passed in any suit instituted Ans. (A) [27th BJS (Pre.) 2009]

31. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court to determine the exact nature
permits the grant of specific performance of of the building.
a part of a contract (B) The plaintiff has sufficient interest
(A) where the part left unperformed bears in the performance of the contract
only a small portion of the whole in value and the interest is of such a nature
and admits of compensation in money. that compensation in money for non-
(B) where the part left unperformed is a performance of the contract is not an
substantial portion of the whole in value adequate relief.
and admits of compensation in money. (C) In pursuance to the contract, the
(C) where the part left unperformed is a small defendant has, in pursuance to the
portion of the whole in subject matter contract, obtained possession of the
and does not admit a compensation in whole or any part of the land on which
money. the building is to be constructed.
(D) none of the above (D) All of the above
Ans. (A) [PJS (Pre.) 2013] Ans. (D) [DJS Set-A (Pre.) 2018-2019]
Section 12(2). Specific performance of part of 34. Who may obtain specific performance of
contract.—(2) Where a party to a contract is contract in his favour?
unable to perform the whole of his part of it, (A) Any party to the contract
but the part which must be left unperformed be (B) The representative in interest of the
a only a small proportion to the whole in value principal or any party
and admits of compensation in money, the court (C) When a company has entered into a
may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific contract and subsequently becomes
performance of so much of the contract as can amalgamated with another company, the
be performed, and award compensation in money new company which arises out of the
for the deficiency. amalgamation
32. Which of the following contracts is not (D) All of the above
specifically enforceable? Ans. (D) [MPJS (Pre.) 2012]
(A) To sell an agriculture property Section 15. Who may obtain specific performance.—
(B) To sell a dwelling house Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter,
(C) To perform in a singing programme the specific performance of a contract may be
(D) None of the above obtained by—
Ans. (C) [Maharashtra (Pre.) 2010] (a) any party thereto.
Section 14(b). Contracts not specifically (b) the representative in interest or the
enforceable.—The following contracts cannot be principal, of any party thereto: Provided
specifically enforced, namely:—(b) a contract, the that where the learning, skill, solvency
performance of which involves the performance or any personal quality of such party is
of a continuous duty which the court cannot a material ingredient in the contract,
supervise. or where the contract provides that
33. For granting specific performance of a his interest shall not be assigned,
contract for the construction of any building, his representative in interest or his
the following conditions have/have to be principal shall not be entitled to specific
fulfilled? performance of the contract, unless
(A) The building is described in the contract such party has already performed his
in terms sufficiently precise to enable part of the contract, or the performance
thereof by his representative in interest,

or his principal, has been accepted by (B) Section 20A
the other party. (C) Section 20B
(c) when a company has entered into a (D) Section 20C.
contract and subsequently becomes Ans. (C) [HPJS (Pre.) 2019-II]
amalgamated with another company, the Section 20B. Special Courts.—The State
new company which arises out of the Government, in consultation with the Chief
amalgamation. Justice of the High Court, shall designate, by
35. Under Section 16 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, notification published in the Official Gazette, one
in a suit for specific performance of contract, or more Civil Courts as Special Courts, within the
the plaintiff must aver performance of, or local limits of the area to exercise jurisdiction and
readiness and willingness to perform. What to try a suit under this Act in respect of contracts
is the meaning of ‘readiness’? relating to infrastructure projects.
(A) Filing of suit within limitation 37. Under Section 20C of Specific Relief Act, for
(B) Plaintiff’s capacity including financial disposal of a suit, maximum period provided
(C) Conduct of plaintiff wanting performance for is
(D) All of above (A) 9 months
(E) None of the above (B) 18 months
Ans. (B) [HJS (Pre.) 2017] (C) 24 months
Section 16(c). Personal bars to relief.—Specific (D) 36 months
performance of a contract cannot be enforced Ans. (B) [MPJS (Pre.) 2019, (Shift - I)]
in favour of a person—(c) who fails to prove that Section 20C. Expeditious disposal of suits.—
he has performed or has always been ready and Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code
willing to perform the essential terms of the of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a suit filed
contract which are to be performed by him, other under the provisions of this Act shall be disposed
than terms of the performance of which has been of by the court within a period of twelve months
prevented or waived by the defendant. from the date of service of summons to the
Explanation—For the purposes of clause (c),— defendant:
(i) where a contract involves the payment of Provided that the said period may be extended
money, it is not essential for the plaintiff for a further period not exceeding six months in
to actually tender to the defendant or to aggregate after recording reasons in writing for
deposit in court any money except when such extension by the court.
so directed by the court; 38. With regard to Section 21 of the Specific
(ii) the plaintiff must prove [Subs by s. Relief Act, 1963, choose the true statement
7, The Specific Relief (Amendment) about propositions:
Act, 2018, for “must aver” (w.e.f. 1-10- (I) In a suit for specific performance of a
2018)] performance of, or readiness and contract, the plaintiff may also claim
willingness to perform the contract compensation for its breach in addition
according to its true construction. to such performance.
36. Which of the following provisions of the (II) If the court decides that specific
Specific Relief Act, 1963, empowers the performance ought to be granted,
State Government to designate one or more but that it is not sufficient to satisfy
Civil Courts as Special Courts to exercise the justice of the case, and that some
jurisdiction and to try a suit in respect of compensation for breach of the contract
contracts relating to infrastructure projects? should also be made to the plaintiff, it
(A) Section 1A

shall award him such compensation discretion, direct rectification of the instrument
accordingly. so as to express that intention, so far as this can
(III) Where the plaintiff has not claimed any be done without prejudice to rights acquired by
compensation in the plaint, the court third persons in good faith and for value.
shall neither grant any compensation nor (3) A contract in writing may first be rectified,
shall allow him to amend the plaint. and then if the party claiming rectification has
Assertions: so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit,
(A) I and II are correct, III is incorrect may be specifically enforced.
(B) II and III are correct, I is incorrect (4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument
(C) I and III are correct, II is incorrect shall be granted to any party under this section
(D) All are correct. unless it has been specifically claimed:
Ans. (A) [HPJS (Pre.) 2019-II] Provided that where a party has not claimed any
39. Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act fixes the such relief in his pleading, the court shall, at any
time limit for discovery of mistake or fraud to stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend
be the pleading on such terms as may be just for
(A) six months including such claim.
(B) three months 40. A plaintiff, in a suit based upon contract
(C) one year for sale, may seek the relief of rescission of
(D) none of the above contract
Ans. (D) [Odisha JS (Pre.) 2011] (A) in alternative to the relief of specific
Section 26 does not fix any time limit for the performance
discovery of mistake or fraud. (B) even after the decree for specific
Section 26. When instrument may be rectified— performance, under certain
(1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of circumstances
the parties a contract or other instrument in (C) if it is voidable by him
writing not being the articles of association of (D) in all of them
a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 Ans. (D) [MPJS (Pre.) 2017]
(1 of 1956), applies does not express their real Section 27. Where rescission may be adjudged or
intention, then— refused.—When rescission may be adjudged or
(a) either party or his representative in refused—(1) Any person interested in a contract
interest may institute a suit to have the may sue to have it rescinded, and such rescission
instrument rectified; or may be adjudged by the court in any of the
(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which following cases, namely:—
any right arising under the instrument is (a) where the contract is voidable or
in issue, claim in his pleading that the terminable by the plaintiff;
instrument be rectified; or (b) where the contract is unlawful for
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is causes not apparent on its face and the
referred to in clause (b), may, in addition defendant is more to blame than the
to any other defence open to him, ask plaintiff.
for rectification of the instrument. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
(2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other section (1), the court may refuse to rescind the
instrument is sought to be rectified under sub- contract—
section (1), the court finds that the instrument, (a) where the plaintiff has expressly or
through fraud or mistake, does not express the impliedly ratified the contract; or
real intention of the parties, the court may in its

(b) where, owing to the change of so far as may be, such benefit to that
circumstances which has taken place party or to make compensation for it;
since the making of the contract (not (b) that the agreement sought to be enforced
being due to any act of the defendant against him in the suit is void by reason
himself), the parties cannot be of his not having been competent to
substantially restored to the position in contract under Section 11 of the Indian
which they stood when the contract was Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), the court
made; or may, if the defendant has received any
(c) where third parties have, during the benefit under the agreement from the
subsistence of the contract, acquired other party, require him to restore, so far
rights in good faith without notice and as may be, such benefit to that party, to
for value; or the extent to which he or his estate has
(d) where only a part of the contract is benefited thereby.
sought to be rescinded and such part 42. The plaintiff has filed the suit for only
is not severable from the rest of the declaration of title, though he is not in
contract. possession of suit property. The suit is barred
Explanation.—In this section “contract” in relation under which provision of the Specific Relief
to the territories to which the Transfer of Property Act, 1963?
Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), does not extend, means a (A) Section 34
contract in writing. (B) Section 35
41. Under Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, (C) Section 36
1963, the compensation is payable, if (D) Section 37
(A) The party received the benefit Ans. (A) [MPJS (Pre.) 2019, (Shift - I)]
(B) The contract is without consideration Section 34. Discretion of court as to declaration
(C) Both (A) and (B) of status or right.—Any person entitled to any
(D) None of the above legal character, or to any right as to any property,
Ans. (A) [HPJS (Pre.) 2016] may institute a suit against any person denying,
The compensation is payable, if party receives or interested to deny, his title to such character
the benefit. or right, and the court may in its discretion make
Section 33. Power to require benefit to be restored therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and
or compensation to be made when instrument is the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any
cancelled or is successfully resisted as being void further relief:
or voidable—(1) On adjudging the cancellation of Provided that no court shall make any such
an instrument, the court may require the party declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek
to whom such relief is granted, to restore, so further relief than a mere declaration of title,
far as may be any benefit which he may have omits to do so.
received from the other party and to make any Explanation.—A trustee of property is a “person
compensation to him which justice may require. interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of
(2) Where a defendant successfully resists any someone who is not inexistence, and for whom, if
suit on the ground— in existence, he would be a trustee.
(a) that the instrument sought to be enforced 43. Which of the following statements are true
against him in the suit is voidable, the regarding a decree of declaration?
court may if the defendant has received
(I) It creates no new rights.
any benefit under the instrument from
(II) It cannot be prayed as a matter of right.
the other party, require him to restore,

(III) If all the parties are not joined, declaration An injunction can be granted to restrain the
cannot be granted. wrongful sale of any property in dispute in a
(IV) Such a decree is conclusive between suit in execution of a decree. An injunction is a
the parties to it and persons litigating preventive remedy granted to a party aggrieved
through them. by the acts of another party, and thereby refrain
(A) (I), (II), (III), (IV) the wrongdoers to pursue the acts performed
by them, to evade any further injury and thus
(B) (I), (III), (IV)
considers equity.
(C) (I), (II), (III)
46. Under Section 37 of Specific Relief Act, 1963
(D) (I) and (II)
a temporary injunction can be granted
Ans. (A) [HJS (Pre.) 2018]
(A) After settlement of the issues
Sections 34 and 35. (B) Before the conclusion of plaintiff’s
44. A suit is filed by X for a declaration that a one- evidence
year-old boy allegedly born to the defendant (C) Before the conclusion of defendant’s
wife Y was not his son. evidence
(A) The suit is competent and maintainable (D) At any stage of the suit
under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Ans. (D) [MPJS Class-2 (Pre.) 2013, (Shift - II)]
Act, 1963 Section 37(1). Temporary and perpetual
(B) The suit is not competent and injunctions.—(1) Temporary injunctions are such
maintainable under Section 34 of the as are to continue until a specific time, or until
Specific Relief Act, 1963 the further order of the court, and they may be
(C) The suit is expressly barred under granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated
Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
47. Under which of the following circumstances
(D) The suit is expressly barred under Section
a court can grant perpetual injunction?
38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Ans. (A) [Maharashtra (Pre.) 2011] (A) To prevent multiplicity of judicial
A suit filed by X for a declaration that a one year proceedings
old boy allegedly born to the defendant wife Y (B) When compensation in money would not
was not his son. The suit is competent and afford adequate relief
maintainable under Section 34 of the Specific (C) No standard for ascertaining actual
Relief Act, 1963. damage exists
45. An injunction can be granted (D) All the above
(A) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, Ans. (D) [Maharashtra (Pre.) 2011]
an act of which it is not reasonably clear Section 38. Perpetual injunction when granted.—
that it will be a nuisance (1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or
(B) to prevent a continuing breach in which referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction
the plaintiff has acquiescence may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the
(C) to restrain the wrongfully sale of any breach of an obligation existing in his favour,
property in dispute in a suit in execution whether expressly or by implication.
of a decree (2) When any such obligation arises from
(D) to prevent the breach of a contract the contract, the court shall be guided by the rules
performance of which would not be and provisions contained in Chapter II.
specifically enforced (3) When the defendant invades or threatens
Ans. (C) [MPJS Class-2 Entry Level to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment
(Pre.) 2018, (Shift - I)]

of, property, the court may grant a perpetual (A) Union of India versus Ibrahim, (2012) 8
injunction in the following cases, namely:— SCC 148.
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the (B) Rukhmabal versus Lala Laxminarayan,
property for the plaintiff; AIR 1960 SC 335
(b) where there exists no standard for (C) Mayawanti versus Kaushalya Devi, (1990)
ascertaining the actual damage caused, 3 SCC 1
or likely to be caused, by the invasion; (D) Ramzan versus Hussaini, (1990) 1 SCC
(c) where the invasion is such that 104.
compensation in money would not Ans. (A) [HPJS (Pre.) 2019-II]
accord adequate relief; Case Reference: Union of India versus Ibrahim,
(d) where the injunction is necessary (2012) 8 SCC 148; also see, Ram Saran versus Smt
to prevent a multiplicity of judicial Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685 and Vinay Krishna
proceedings. versus Keshav Chandra, AIR 1993 SC 957: 1993
48. An injunction cannot be granted under the Supp (3) SCC 129.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 The court was of the view that it is not
(A) to restrain any person from instituting or permissible to claim the relief of declaration
prosecuting any proceedings in a court without seeking consequential relief. In this
not subordinate to that from which the case, suit for declaration of title of ownership
injunction is sought. had been filed though the plaintiff/respondent
(B) to prevent the breach of contract, the No. 1 was admittedly not in possession of the
performance of which would not be suit property. Thus, the suit was barred by the
specifically enforced. provision of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act,
(C) when the plaintiff has no personal and therefore, ought to have been dismissed
interest in the matter. solely on this ground.
(D) all the above 50. In which of the following cases the “prohibitory
ANS. (D) [PJS (Pre.) 2013] injunction under the Specific Relief Act” was
Section 41. Injunction when refused.—An discussed?
injunction cannot be granted— (A) Sarvesh versus Sanju, AIR 2010 Uttra 16
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or (B) Mansha Ram versus Dr Ved, AIR 2010
prosecuting any proceeding in a court not Uttra 14
subordinate to that from which the injunction is (C) Daulat Ram versus Gopal Krishan, AIR
sought, 2010 Uttra 9
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the
(D) Vijay Goyal versus State, AIR 2010 Uttra
performance of which would not be specifically
12
enforced,
Ans. (C) [HPJS (Pre.) 2018]
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in
Case Reference: Daulat Ram versus Gopal Krishan,
the matter.
AIR 2010 Uttra 9
49. In which of the following cases the Supreme
Issue: Decreeing the suit for Prohibitory injunction
Court ruled that ‘a suit seeking merely
retraining the defendant from interfering in the
declaration to title of ownership about a
possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit.
property without seeking possession, when
the plaintiff is not in possession of the
property, is not maintainable.....?

Recent and Relevant Cases
Katta Sujatha Reddy versus Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 712
Point/s to note: Specific Relief Amendment of 2018; Retrospective or prospective effect.
Amendment of 2018
- Whether the amended Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act is prospective?
The Amendment which came into force in 2018 to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot
apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force.
- 01.10.2018 was the appointed date on which the amended provisions would come into effect.
- The effect of amendment by substitution would be that the earlier provisions would be repealed, and
amended provisions would be enacted in place of the earlier provisions from the date of inception
of that enactment. However, if the substituted provisions contain any substantive provisions which
create new rights, obligations, or take away any vested rights, then such substitution cannot
automatically be assumed to have come into force retrospectively. In such cases, the legislature
has to expressly provide as to whether such substitution is to be construed retrospectively or not.
—————
VS Ramakrishnan versus PM Muhammed Ali, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 935
Point/s to note: Readiness and willingness; Framing the issue.
Framing of Specific Issues on the Readiness and Willingness

- If the issue is specific, such issue on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff must be
framed by the trial court in a suit for specific performance.
- While refusing to pass a decree for specific performance, the trial court observed that there was
no specific issue framed on readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. It was observed
that, in a suit for specific performance, the specific issue must be framed on readiness and
willingness on the part of the plaintiff also, before giving any specific finding; the parties must be
put to notice.
- The object and purpose of framing the issue are that the parties to the suit can lead the specific
evidence on the same.
—————
Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. versus Regency Mahavir Properties, 2020 SCC Online SC 655
Point/s to note: Action in rem; Section 31 SRA; Action in personam.
Action in Rem
- When it comes to the cancellation of a deed by an executant to the document, such a person can
approach the court under Section 31, but when it comes to the cancellation of a deed by a non-
executant, the non-executant must approach the court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963. Cancellation of the very same deed, therefore, by a non-executant would be an action
in personam since a suit has to be filed under Section 34. However, cancellation of the same deed
by an executant of the deed, being under Section 31, would somehow convert the suit into a suit
being in rem.
- All these anomalies only highlight the impossibility of holding that an action instituted under
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an action in rem.
—————

Sucha Singh Sodhi versus Baldev Raj Walia, (CA No. 3777 of 2018)
Point/s to note: Cause of action; Permanent Injunction; Relief of specific performance
Relief of Specific Performance

- First, the cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim
relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and
vice versa.
In other words, a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the
defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed relief of permanent injunction.
- Second, the cause of action to claim temporary/permanent injunction against the defendants
from interfering in the plaintiff’s possession over the suit premises accrues when defendant No. 1
threatens the plaintiff to dispossess him from the suit premises or otherwise cause injury to the
plaintiff in relation to the suit premises. It is governed by Order XXXIX, rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure which deals with the grant of injunction. The limitation to file such a suit is three years
from the date of obstruction caused by the defendant to the plaintiff (See–Part VII Articles 85, 86,
and 87 of the Limitation Act).
On the other hand, the cause of action to file a suit for claiming specific performance of agreement
arises from the date fixed for the performance or when no such date is fixed when the plaintiff
has noticed that the defendant refuses performance. The limitation to file such a suit three years
from such date (See–Part II Article 54 of the Limitation Act)
- Third, when both the reliefs/claims, namely,—(1) Permanent Injunction, and (2) Specific performance
of agreement are not identical, when the causes of action to sue are separate, when the factual
ingredients necessary to constitute the respective causes of action for both the reliefs/claims are
different and lastly when both the reliefs/claims are governed by separate Articles of the Limitation
Act, then, in our opinion, it is not possible to claim both the reliefs together on one cause of action.
—————
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd versus KS Infraspace LLP; and Haryana Containers Ltd versus KS
Infraspace LLP, Civil Appeal Nos. 9346, 9347, 9348-49 of 2019
Point/s to note: Preventive Relief; Grant of relief; Conduct of parties.
Grant of Relief in a Suit for Specific Performance
- Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provides for the grant of preventive relief.
- Section 37 provides that the Code of Civil Procedure shall regulate temporary injunction in a suit.
- The grant of relief in a suit for specific performance is a discretionary remedy. A plaintiff seeking a
temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance will, therefore, have to establish a strong
prima facie case based on the basis of undisputed facts. The conduct of the plaintiff will also be
a very relevant consideration for purposes of the injunction. The discretion at this stage has to be
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
- The conduct of parties is also a relevant consideration for interim injunction, in addition to the
factors of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreperable injury.
- Strong prima facie case on undisputed facts is necessary for getting the relief of temporary
injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract.
—————

Practice Questions
1. What do you understand by Specific Relief? Whether specific relief can be granted for enforcement
of criminal law? [Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, 2016]
2. What is the importance of “readiness and willingness to perform” in a suit for specific performance?
What happens when the plaintiff has not averred his readiness and willingness to perform in his
pleadings? [Haryana Judicia lService, 2015]
3. Explain the provisions relating to recovery of possession of a specific movable and immovable
property under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. [Rajasthan Judicial Service, 2014]
4. Write a short note on the injunction as a discretionary relief. [Delhi Judicial Service, 2014]
5. Write the contracts which cannot be specifically enforced under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Support your answers with suitable illustrations. [Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service, 2013]
6. Discuss the circumstances under which the Court may refuse an injunction. [Madhya Pradesh
Judicial Service, 2010]
7. Describe in detail the legal provision and essential elements of an ‘adverse possession’. [Madhya
Pradesh Judicial Service, 2011]
8. What is necessary to be averred and proved by the person seeking specific performance of a
contract? [Delhi Judicial Service, 2008]
9. List out the persons in whose favor specific performance cannot be enforced under the Specific
Relief Act, Section 16. [Haryana Judicial Service, 2007]
10. When can a person who is not the owner and is dispossessed of immovable property, recover
possession? [Haryana Judicial Service, 2006]
Sample Answer
What do you understand by Specific Relief? Whether specific relief can be granted for
enforcement of criminal law?
Specific Relief
The term ‘Specific Relief’ means ‘a relief in specie’. Specific reliefs are additional remedies which
aims at the exact fulfilment of an obligation. These reliefs are basically based on the maxim ubi jus
ibi remedium which means ‘where there is a right, there is a remedy’. In simple words, if the right is
violated, the remedy will be provided.
Such reliefs can be said to be complementary as the reliefs are based on the principle of equity and
justice, i.e., the court has to balance the interest of the parties.
Specific relief cannot be granted for the enforcement of criminal law.
Criminal Law: As per Section 4 of the Act of 1963, specific relief can be granted only for the purpose
of enforcing individual civil rights and not for enforcing the penal laws. Criminal law includes the
punishment and rehabilitation of people who violate laws. Criminal law is concerned with crimes and
the punishment of individuals who commit crimes. On the other hand, specific reliefs are the alternate
remedies which are based on the principle of equity and justice. The principle behind the enactment
of the Act of 1963 is that it was not framed merely for the purpose of providing a better remedy in
the case of a criminal offence, but the court lends its jurisdiction on the ground of injury to property.
Civil Law: As far as the civil aspect is concerned, Section 5 of the 1963 Act provides that a person
entitled to the possession of any specific immovable property can recover it in the manner prescribed

by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). Action under civil law is taken by filing a suit for
damages in case of breach of contract. It is clear that such reliefs can be claimed for exculpation of
rights under civil law and it cannot be claimed for enforcement under criminal law. By enacting the
specific relief law, the object was not to enforce to criminal or penal laws but protect the civil rights
of a plaintiff to or prevent any civil wrong to him.
As discussed in Ashok Kumar Srivastav versus National Insurance Co Ltd, AIR 1998 SC 2046; and
Hungerford Investment Trust versus Haridas Mundhra, AIR 1972 SC 1826, though the Specific Relief Act
widens the spheres of the civil court, its preamble shows that the Act is not exhaustive of all kinds
of specific reliefs. ‘An Act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief’, it is
well to remember that the Act is not restricted to specific performance of contracts as the statute
governs powers of the court in granting specific reliefs in a variety of fields. Even so, the Act does not
cover all specific reliefs conceivable.
The Specific Relief Act, 1963, is not an exhaustive enactment. It does not consolidate the whole law
on the subject. As the preamble would indicate, it is an Act “to define and amends the law relating
to certain kinds of specific relief”. It does not purport to lay down the law relating to specific relief in
all its ramifications.
Procedural and Substantive law: According to Pollock and Mulla, the Specific Relief Act is a procedural
law as it does not create any legal right. However, it provides only additional or complimentary
remedies. In general, the Specific Relief Act is neither procedural nor substantive. It does not deal
with proceedings, and therefore, it is not a purely procedural Act. It does not create any legal right,
and therefore, it is not purely substantive.

Specific Relief Act, 1963: History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specific Relief Act, 1963: History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Specific Relief Act, 1963: History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Applicability of the Act

The Objective of the Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 169

Statement of Objects and Reasons

List of Amending Acts

170 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 5 – Recovery of specific immovable property

LIMITATION ACT GOVERNING SUITS FOR POSSESSION

Specific Relief Act, 1963 171

It is an available remedy, as the suit filed is an It is a summary and additional remedy.

172 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Recovery of Possession of Specific Movable Property

Sine Qua Non for Applicability of Section 7

Plaintiff must be entitled to the possession: Property in question must be a specific

Liability to Deliver Possession to Person Entitled

Specific Relief Act, 1963 173

Difference Between Section 7 and Section 8

Specific Performance of Contract

Section 10 – Specific Performance in Respect of Contracts

174 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 14 Contracts Not Specifically Enforceable

Section 20 Substituted Performance of Contract

Specific Relief Act, 1963 175

Requirements for the Applicability of Section 20

Section 6 Personal Bars to Relief

176 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Non-performance or Violation of an Essential Term

Section 15 Who may obtain specific performance

Specific Relief Act, 1963 177

178 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 20A Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project

Special Courts for Infrastructure Projects

Time Limit for Disposal of Matter

Specific Relief Act, 1963 179

Chapter III Rectification of Instruments

Section 26 - When instrument may be ratified

Who can seek for Ratification

180 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Chapter V Cancellation of Instrument

Chapter VI Declaratory Decree

Specific Relief Act, 1963 181

Declaratory Decree - A Discretion of Court

Scope of Declaratory Remedy

182 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Sine Qua Non for Seeking Relief under Section 34

Period of Limitation Prescribed for Suits Relating to Declarations

Part III – Preventive Relief

Specific Relief Act, 1963 183

Grounds for Granting Temporary Injunction

184 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Deﬁned in Section37(1) Deﬁned in Section 37(2)

Perpetual Injunction when Granted

When Positive Injunction is Coupled with Negative Injunction

Specific Relief Act, 1963 185

Refusal of Injunctive Relief

186 Specific Relief Act, 1963

Specific Relief Act, 1963 187

188 Specific Relief Act, 1963