Issue 2: That, in a contract breach, the court can only grant specific performance of a
contract
SNo. Judgment Relevant Paragraph
1. Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana 15. The Trial Court vide Judgment and
Modak (Das) and Another Order dt. 20.11.2018 has held that the
Plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for
specific performance of contract and
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC accordingly decreed the suit in favour
3834 of the Plaintiff on 23.11.2018. The
Trial Court held that:
Judgement decided by Supreme
Court of India on December 20, i. The Defendants failed to establish that
2024 the suit property was mortgaged to
the Agartala Co-operative Urban
Bank Ltd. and they were not
necessary parties to the suit;
ii. The suit in question was filed within
limitation;
iii. The Registered Agreement of Sale
dated 27.05.2016 was signed by Mr.
Prabha Ranjan Das himself and the
same was identified by PW-2 and
PW-3 respectively (Attesting
witnesses)
iv. Prabha Ranjan Das was mentally fit
at the time of signing and registration
of the Agreement of Sale. The
Defendants lead no evidence or
produced any document to their
claim that Prabha Ranjan Das was
mentally unfit to give effect to the
transaction.
v. Plaintiff was always ready & willing
to perform his part of the contract.
vi. Defendants failed to prove that the
performance of a contract would
involve hardship on them which
Prabha Ranjan Das had not foreseen
at the time of execution of the
Agreement of Sale. subsequent to the
contract from any act of the plaintiff.
41. The learned counsel appearing for
the respondents (Original defendants)
vehemently submitted that the Trial
Court failed to frame any issue
whether the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform his part
of the contract. It seems that the
learned counsel is under some
misconception of fact that the Trial
Court did not frame the issue as
regards whether the plaintiff was
ready and willing to perform his part
of the contract. The Trial Court did
frame the issue as regards readiness
& willingness & answered in the
affirmative, i.e., in favour of the
plaintiff. The High Court does not
seem to have touched this issue at all.
The High Court has not disturbed the
findings recorded by the Trial Court
on the issue of readiness &
willingness. The plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform his part
of the contract.
42. In the overall view of the matter, we
are convinced that the High Court
committed an error in setting aside
the decree passed by the Trial Court
of specific performance.
43. In the result, this appeal succeeds
and is hereby allowed.
2. Rohit Malhotra v. Gurvinder 113. Thus, the defendant refusing to
Singh Toor honour its commitment to purchase
the shares of the Company under the
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Del
MoU for no justiciable reason is not
4595
tenable and the plaintiff is entitled to
High Court of Delhi at New seek specific performance of MoU
Delhi which contains reciprocal obligations
of payment of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-
towards the relinquishment/transfer
of 45% shares in favour of the
defendant by executing a Share
Purchase Agreement.
122. The present application is allowed
and it is hereby held that the SPA
agreed to be executed under the MoU
dated 14.02.2020, is amenable to
specific performance. 123. The
defendant is hereby directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- within two
months and on payment of the said
amount, the Share Purchase
Agreement, transferring his 45%
equity shareholding shall be executed
forthwith by the plaintiff in favour of
the defendant.
3. Seema Gupta … Petitioner;
Versus Sunny Talwani
70. The law regarding the issue specific
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Del performance under the Specific
2349 Relief Act, has been settled. The
same stands modified with the
High Court of Delhi at New
amendments brought about in the
Delhi
Specific Relief Act introduced in
Decided on April 26, 2023 2018. The relief of specific
performance is an equitable relief. As
per the amended Act, the Courts no
longer have discretionary powers
under the Specific Relief Act while
adjudicating a relief of specific
performance. The Court may require
to be satisfied on certain tests before
granting the relief of specific
performance, however, upon
fulfilment of the ingredients and
satisfaction of the court, a relief of
specific performance may
mandatorily be granted.
71. The Hon'ble Supreme Court,
prior to holding that the relief of
specific performance is no longer
discretionary, in the judgment of
Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi,
(2019) 3 SCC 704 stipulated certain
considerations while adjudicating a
plea so raised by a party and held as
under:— “7. …. The material
questions, which are required to be
gone into for grant of the relief of
specific performance, are:
7.1. First, whether there exists a
valid and concluded contract
between the parties for sale/purchase
of the suit property.
7.2. Second, whether the plaintiff has
been ready and willing to perform his
part of contract and whether he is
still ready and willing to perform his
part as mentioned in the contract.
7.3. Third, whether the plaintiff has,
in fact, performed his part of the
contract and, if so, how and to what
extent and in what manner he has
performed and whether such
performance was in conformity with
the terms of the contract;
7.4. Fourth, whether it will be
equitable to grant the relief of
specific performance to the plaintiff
against the defendant in relation to
suit property or it will cause any kind
of hardship to the defendant and, if
so, how and in what manner and the
extent if such relief is eventually
granted to the plaintiff;
7.5. Lastly, whether the plaintiff is
entitled for grant of any other
alternative relief, namely, refund of
earnest money, etc. and, if so, on
what grounds.
8. In our opinion, the aforementioned
questions are part of the statutory
requirements [See Sections 16(c), 20,
21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 and Forms 47/48 of Appendices
A to C of the Code of Civil
Procedure]. These requirements have
to be properly pleaded by the parties
in their respective pleadings and
proved with the aid of evidence in
accordance with law. It is only then
the Court is entitled to exercise its
discretion and accordingly grant or
refuse the relief of specific
performance depending upon the
case made out by the parties on
facts.”
73. It is apparent that the learned
Arbitrator considered the aspect of
readiness and willingness to perform
an Agreement while deciding the
question of specific performance
while applying the principles to the
facts of the instant case. Referring to
the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the issue of
extended time period raised by the
petitioner herein, the learned
Arbitrator found that there was a
degree of readiness and willingness
on the part of the respondent to fulfil
his obligations and perform the
Agreement. The learned Arbitrator
has thoroughly considered the
evidence, contentions of the parties
as well as the law laid down by the
judicial precedents before reaching
the conclusion that the respondent is
entitled for specific performance of
the Agreement.
74. Therefore, this Court on the Issue
No. II is of the opinion that the
learned Arbitrator thoroughly and
elaborately considered the objections
raised on behalf of the petitioner
regarding execution of the Agreement
to Sell and only thereafter considered
the question of specific performance
of the Agreement after due
appreciation of evidence and material
on record.
4. P. Daivasigamani v. S. 33. Though much reliance was placed
Sambandan by the learned counsel for the
appellant on the decisions of this
Citation: (2022) 14 SCC 793 :
Court in Ritu Saxena v. J.S. Grover
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1391 at
[Ritu Saxena v. J.S. Grover, (2019) 9
page 811
SCC 132 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 302] ,
Supreme court of India in Abdullakoya Haji v. Rubis
Tharayil [Abdullakoya Haji v. Rubis
Decided on October 12, 2022 Tharayil, (2019) 17 SCC 216 : (2020)
3 SCC (Civ) 399] , and other cases,
to submit that the respondent had
failed to establish his financial
capacity to pay the balance amount of
consideration at the relevant time and
had also failed to deposit the said
amount in the court at the time of
filing of the suit, he was not entitled
to the discretionary relief of specific
performance as granted by the Court,
we do not find any substance in any
of the said submissions. As per the
ratio of judgment laid down by the
three-Judge Bench in Syed Dastagir
[Syed Dastagir v. T.R. Gopalakrishna
Setty, (1999) 6 SCC 337] , the
compliance of “readiness and
willingness” has to be in spirit and
substance and not in letter and form,
while making averments in the plaint.
As per Explanation (i) to Section
16(c), he need not tender to the
defendant or deposit the amount in
the court, but he must aver
performance of, or readiness and
willingness to perform the contract
according to its true construction.
34. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and to the
conduct of the parties, we have no
hesitation in holding that there was
due compliance of Section 16(c) read
with its Explanation on the part of the
respondent and that it was the
appellant who had failed to perform
as per the terms of the agreement,
though called upon by the respondent
to perform. The High Court also had
rightly held that the plaintiff had
complied with the requirements of
Section 16(c) of the said Act by
making a specific pleading with
regard to his readiness and
willingness and also proving the
same by reliable evidence. This Court
does not find any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment
[S. Sambandam v. P. Daivasigamani,
2010 SCC OnLine Mad 3459] passed
by the High Court. We, therefore
confirm the same, so far as granting
of decree for specific performance of
the agreement in question is
concerned.
