Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment – Discretion as to decreeing specific performance – Agreement of Sale was executed by the predecessor of the defendantsrespondents (husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2) in favour of the plaintiff-appellant however, he died before the execution of the Sale deed – Defendants declined to execute the Sale Deed – Decree of specific performance passed by Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff – Decree set aside by High Court holding that the predecessor of the defendants was unable to foresee the hardship that would be caused to him and the family at the time when he executed the Agreement of Sale w.r.t the suit property and the defendants were able to establish that except the suit property they did not have any other property and if they had to part with it that would cause hardship to them – Correctness: Held: Not correct– High Court erred in taking the view that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for specific performance as it would cause hardship to the defendants – It overlooked the fact that the question of hardship in terms of Section 20(2)(b) r/w explanation (2) bears reference to hardship, which the defendant did not foresee at the time of entering into the contract – The issue of hardship would come into play only if it was established by cogent evidence that predecessor of the defendants who executed the Agreement of Sale was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract – The explanation elucidates the point of time at which the hardship has to be determined with reference to the circumstances existing at the time of the contract, except where the hardship has been caused from an act of the plaintiff subsequent to the contract – Nothing in the pleadings or evidence shows that there was a hardship of the kind which the predecessor of the defendants did not foresee at the time he executed the Agreement of Sale or that the hardship which the defendants would face is the result of an act of the plaintiff based on his supervening acts – Defendants brought nothing on record to show that the suit property was the only shelter available to them – In fact, the evidence on record shows that the predecessor of the defendants was not getting along well with them and the defendants were residing separately – It was only when he passed away that the defendants tried to take over the suit property – Impugned order set aside, decree of the Trial Court restored with modification as stated. [Paras 33-36, 43]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20, prior to the 2018 Amendment – Discretion as to decreeing specific performance – Refusal to decree specific performance on the ground of ‘hardship’: Held: The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary – The discretion is not arbitrary but is “sound and reasonable”, to be “guided by judicial principles” – The exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a court of appeal in the hierarchy of appellate courts – Sub-section (2) of Section
20 contains a stipulation of those cases where the court may exercise its discretion not to grant specific performance – Section
20 as it stood prior to the 2018 Amendment shows as to under what circumstances ‘hardship’ can be taken into consideration in refusing specific performance – It is not possible to enumerate the different circumstances which constitute a hardship and the question of hardship will have to be adjudged in the facts and circumstances of the case. [Paras 27, 28]
Words and Phrases – “mere” – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – ss.20(4), 20(2)(a)-(c) – Explanations – Discussed. [ Paras 8, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.