CHAPTER II

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OFCONTRACT

A contract is an agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or not to do a particular act. The

party on whom this contractual obligation rests must not fails to discharge such obligation. In
case of his failure, the other party will have a right sue for performance of the contract. This is
called ‘Specific Performance’ .Order of specific performance are granted when damages are not
an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale."Such orders are discretionary,
as with all suitable remedies, so the availability of this remedy will depend on whether it is
appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under current law, courts grant specific
performance when they perceive that damages will inadequate compensation. "Specific
performance is deemed an extraordinary remedy, awarded at the courts discretion.

Specific performance is equitable relief, given by the court to enforce against a defendant, the
duty of doing what he agreed by contract to do. Thus, the remedy of specific performance is in
contrast with the remedy by way of damages for breach of contract, which gives pecuniary
compensation for failure to carry out the terms of the contract. Damages and specific
performance are both, remedies available upon breach of obligations by a party to the contract;
the former is a ‘substitutional’ remedy, and the latter a ‘specific’ remedy. The remedy of specific
performance is granted by way of exception.

The plaintiff seeking this remedy must first satisfy the court that the normal remedy of damages
is inadequate, the presumption being that in cases of contracts for transfer of immovable property
, damages will not be adequate. Even in these cases specific performance is not always granted,
as it is a discretionary remedy.

The relief must be specifically claimed. When the plaintiff claims specific performance of a
particular agreement, the suit could be decreed for specific performance of only that agreement,
and not any other.

The prescribed period of limitation for a suit of specific performance is three years from the date
fixed for performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that
performance has been refused.
SEC 9. DEFENCES RESPECTING SUITS FOR RELIEF BASED ON CONTRACT.

Except as otherwise provided herein where any relief is claimed under this Chapter in respect of
a contract, the person against whom the relief is claimed may plead by way of defence any
ground which is available to him under any law relating to contracts.

This section makes it clear that in a case relating to specific enforcement of the contract, the
defendant can take all those defences which are available under any law relating to contracts.
In Sanjib v. Santosh (AIR 1922 Cal 436), it was held by this Court that on such an agreement a
suit for specific performance could not be founded even though the tenant was put in possession
in pursuance of the said agreement as the document was hit by Section 49.
CONTRACTS WHICH CAN BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED

SEC 10. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE 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.

According to the explanation of Section 10, unless and until the contrary is proved, the court
shall presume that in a breach of contract for the transfer of immovable property, compensation
in money will not afford an adequate relief.
Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in
the discretion of the court, be enforced—
(a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage caused by the non-
performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance
would not afford adequate relief.
Explanation: Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume—
(i) that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately relieved by
compensation in money; and
(ii) that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be so relieved except in the
following cases:
 (a) where the property is not an ordinary article of commerce, or is of special value
or interest to the plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily obtainable in the
market;
(b) where the property is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff.”
There is a clear distinction between the cases giving rise to the filling of a suit for specific
performance in the event of breach of recitals of an agreement for due performance of which the
parties have covenanted to agree and perform and those which the award of compensation will
be adequate relief.
Damages cannot be ascertained
The rule is based on the uncertainty of calculation of damages in cases where they cannot be
based on anything, but conjecture or surmise. Thus, where A agree to buy, and B agrees to sell, a
picture by a dead painter and two rare China vases, A may compel B specifically to perform this
contract, for, there is no standard for ascertaining the actual damage which would be caused by
its non-performance.
By claiming damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff disentitles himself, on account of his
own election, to treat the contract from claiming specific performance of the same contract as an
alternative case, either originally or subsequently, by way amendment. Such conflicting terms
are not permitted under OVII, rule 7 of the CPC.
However, a stipulation in a contract to be liable to repay the amount paid and to pay
compensation if the promisor sold the property to another person , does not detract from the right
to specific performance.
Compensation not adequate relief
Specific performance will not granted where compensation is enough relief. Damages may be
considered to be an inadequate remedy. If it is difficult to quantify them. Thus, specific
performance may be ordered of a contract to execute a mortgage for money advanced.

A contract for execution of the work contracted would fall within the types of contracts
described in this section as specifically enforceable, but the relief is not appropriate and,
therefore, not granted because the work is a kind which a court of justice has no means of
supervising. A court will, therefore, not usually grant this remedy on a contract for building or
engineering work.
Contract to transfer Immovable property
The view that a breach of contract for land cannot be adequately compensated is not because of
the real nature of land, but because damages, even where calculated upon the general money
value of land, may not be a complete remedy to the purchaser, to whom the land may have a
peculiar and specific value.
Contract regarding Movable property
A contract to deliver specific goods will be enforced by way of specific performance if they are
‘articles of unusual beauty, rarity and distinction or of special value to the party suing by reason
of personal or family association or like.
Presumption
This section raises a presumption that compensation would not be adequate in the case of
transfer of immovable property, and it would be adequate in case of breach of transfer of
movable property. Thus, the party alleging compensation is respectively adequate or inadequate
must prove it.
In Krishan v. Krishnan S/o Kizhakkum-brath Arumugha Tharakar (AIR 1993 Kerala
134), it was held where the agreement to sell the property was by three co-owners, the suit can be
specifically enforced against one of the co-owners in respect of his share.

SEC 11. CASES IN WHICH SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS

CONNECTED WITH TRUSTS ENFORCEABLE

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this 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 in excess of his powers or in breach of trust cannot be
specifically enforced.
SEC 12. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF PART OF CONTRACT

(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, the court shall not direct the specific
performance of a part of a contract.

(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, but the part which
must be left unperformed be a only a small proportion to the whole in value and admits of
compensation in money, the court may, at the suit of either party, direct the specific performance
of so much of the contract as can be performed, and award compensation in money for the
deficiency.

(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part which
must be left unperformed either

(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though admitting of compensation in money; or

(b) does not admit of compensation in money; he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific
performance; but the court may, at the suit of the other party, direct the party in default to
perform specifically so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, if the other party

(i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid the agreed consideration for the whole of
the contract reduced by the consideration for the part which must be left unperformed and in a
case falling under clause (b) [pays or has paid] the consideration for the whole of the contract
without any abatement; and

(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract
and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by him
through the default of the defendant.

(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically performed,
stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which
cannot or ought not to be specifically performed the court may direct specific performance of the
former part.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, a party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable
to perform the whole of his part of it if a portion of its subject-matter existing at the date of the
contract has ceased to exist at the time of its performance.

It states that the Court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of the contract unless it
can enforce the contract.

A court will not, as a general rule, compel specific performance of a contract unless it can
execute the whole contract. This section deals with classes of cases in which specific
performance may be granted with or subject to special conditions or restrictions. When a part of
the contract is not capable of performance is always whether the contract can be executed in
substance.

This provision can be invoked only where terms of the contract permit segregation of interests
and rights of parties in the property, and if the intention is to the contrary, the provision cannot
be attracted.

SEC 13. RIGHTS OF PURCHASER OR LESSEE AGAINST PERSON WITH NO TITLE

OR IMPERFECT TITLE.

(1) Where a person contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having no title or only an
imperfect title, the purchaser or lessee (subject to the other provisions of this Chapter), has the
following rights, namely:—

(a) if the vendor or lessor has subsequently to the contract acquired any interest in the property,
the purchaser or lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest;

(b) where the concurrence of other person is necessary for validating the title, and they are bound
to concur at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to
procure such concurrence, and when a conveyance by other persons is necessary to validate the
title and they are bound to convey at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee
may compel him to procure such conveyance;

(c) where the vendor professes to sell unencumbered property, but the property is mortgaged for
an amount not exceeding the purchase money and the vendor has in fact only a right to redeem it,
the purchaser may compel him to redeem the mortgage and to obtain a valid discharge, and,
where necessary, also a conveyance from the mortgagee;

(d) where the vendor or lessor sues for specific performance of the contract and the suit is
dismissed on the ground of his want of title or imperfect title, the defendant has a right to a return
of his deposit, if any, with interest thereon, to his costs of the suit, and to a lien for such deposit,
interest and costs on the interest, if any, of the vendor or lesser in the property which is the
subject-matter of the contract.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale
or hire of movable property.

It states that a contract can still be enforced even when the person has no or an imperfect title and
he shall have the rights mentioned above.

CONTRACTS, WHICH CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCED

SEC 14. CONTRACTS NOT SPECIFICALLY ENFORCEABLE.

The following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely

(a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance
with the provisions of section 20;

(b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which
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. 14A. 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.

In Executive Committee, State Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, the

Supreme Court held that ordinarily the contracts for personal services cannot be specifically
enforced subject to certain exceptions.

Contracts not specifically enforceable.-

Where compensation in money is an adequate relief:

Contracts, the non-performance of which can sufficiently be compensated by the payment of

damages cannot be specifically performed as per S. 14(a) of the Act. For example, a contract for
the supply of commodities is generally not specifically enforceable.  For example contract of
mortgage of immovable property (Rambai v. Khimji), contract of sale of goods (Bharat
v. Nisarali), contract of repair of premises etc.

Where a contract runs into minutes or numerous detail: 

These contracts includes contract which depends upon the personal qualification or the violation
of the parties or is of such nature that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its
material terms. In Robinson Davison, it was held by the court that the contract to perform in
concert depends upon the personal kill of defendant’s wife, and the contract cannot be
specifically enforced due to her illness. The other example is construction contract where the
detailed terms of contract are not explained.

Where specific performance of material terms cannot be enforced:

S. 14(b) states that a contract which runs into such minute or numerous details or which is so
dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of the parties or otherwise from its nature is
such, that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms. For example a
contract for personal service or employment cannot be enforced by or against the employer, only
damages can be sought.

Contracts which involve the performance of continuous duty which court cannot supervise:

  Earlier under Specific Relief act, 1877 the continuous duty which court cannot supervise is
considered over a period of 3 years which was omitted under Specific Relief Act, 1963 and no
time limit restricted for the performance of a continuous duty. These include contract of
appointment of employees for continuous service or contract to execute sale deed every year.
In Central Bank v. Vyankatesh , the defendant was required to execute deed every year for the
period of 25 years and contract is held to be specifically unenforceable.

A contract which is in its nature determinable:

The term determinable suggests a situation where despite the court’s enforcement; the parties can
immediately revert to their original position, thereby making such enforcement futile. For
example, where A and B contract for partnership without providing a defined duration, the
partnership cannot be enforced as it could easily be dissolved at once.

A contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the
court cannot supervise:

The difficulty of supervision by the Court is the main reason why due performance in certain
contracts cannot be specifically enforced. Thus the agreement by a landlord to provide a
housekeeper cannot be specifically enforced.

Determinable contract means a contract which can be determined or revoked or put to an end by
a party to the contract. For example in case of partnership at will any partner can retire by giving
notice in writing to other partners and can dissolve the firm.
Arbitration matters

Any contract to refer differences (existing or future) to arbitration must satisfy the requirements
of the Arbitration Act and must be specifically enforced only as per the former. However, the
existence of a contract which does not satisfy the former would none-the-less bar a suit for
specific performance of a subject that is contracted to be referred. This is provided under S.14(2)
of the S.R.A

Exceptions

Despite the clauses of S. 14(1), the court may enforce specific performance in the circumstances
provided under S. 14(3)

Where the suit is for the enforcement of a contract,-

 to execute a mortgage or secure the repayment of any loan which the borrower is not
willing to repay at once: Provided that where only a part of the loan has been advanced
the lender is willing to advance the remaining part of the loan in terms of the contract; or
 to take up and pay for any debentures of a company;

Where the suit is for-

 the execution of a formal deed of partnership, the parties having commenced to carry on
the business of the partnership; or
 the purchase of a share of a partner in a firm,

However, Section 14(3) contains certain exception and the following kinds of contract are
specifically enforceable

1. A contract to execute a mortgage or furnish other security for repayment of any loan
which the borrower is not willing to repay at once, the court would grant specific
performance to execute mortgage or to give any other security.
2. A contract to take up and pay for any debentures of a company.
3. A contract to execute a formal deed of partnership at will when the business has
already commenced.
 4. A contract for the construction of any building or the execution of any other work on
land if;
5. Detailed or the terms of the contract has been sufficiently explained & the court can
determine the exact nature of building or work.
6. The plaintiff has a substantial interest in performance of the contract and
compensation in money is not an adequate relief.
7. The defendant has in accordance with the contract, obtained possession of whole or
part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be
executed.

PERSONS FOR OR AGAINST WHOM CONTRACTS MAY BE SPECIFICALLY

ENFORCED

SEC 15. 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 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 such covenant;
(f) a reversioner in remainder, where the agreement is such a covenant, and the reversioner is
entitled to the benefit thereof and will sustain material injury by reason 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 such contract is warranted by the terms of the incorporation,
the company:

Provided that the company has accepted the contract and has communicated such acceptance to
the other party to the contract.

A person, who sues for specific performance of an agreement, will have the burden of proving
the same.

SEC 16. 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 wilfully 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) (ii) the plaintiff [must prove] performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform,
the contract according to its true construction.

Specific performance of contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person in the following

cases:-

 Who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach; or

 Who has become incapable of performing or violates any essential term of, the contract
that in his part remains to be performed or acts in fraud of the contract, or willfully acts at
variance with or in subversion of the relation intended to be established by the contract;
or
 Who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing
to perform the essential terms of the contract.

It was observed in N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R.J. Mohan Rao that where it is clear from the
evidence that the plaintiff was not “ready and willing” to perform his part of the contract, he
would not be entitled to get the decree of specific performance.

SEC 17. CONTRACT TO SELL OR LET PROPERTY BY ONE WHO HAS NO TITLE,
NOT SPECIFICALLY ENFORCEABLE.

(1) A contract to sell or let any immovable property cannot be specifically enforced in favour of
a vendor or lessor

(a) who, knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has contracted to sell or let the
property;

(b) who, though he entered into the contract believing that he had a good title to the property,
cannot at the time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or letting,
give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale
or hire of movable property.

SEC 18. NON-ENFORCEMENT EXCEPT WITH VARIATION.

Where a plaintiff seeks specific performance of a contract in writing, to which the defendant sets
up a variation, the plaintiff cannot obtain the performance sought, except with the variation so set
up, in the following cases, namely:

(a) where by fraud, mistake of fact or mis-representation, the written contract of which
performance is sought is in its terms or effect different from what the parties agreed to, or does
not contain all the terms agreed to between the parties on the basis of which the defendant
entered into the contact;

(b) where the object of the parties was to produce a certain legal result which the contract as
framed is not calculated to produce;

(c) where the parties have, subsequently to the execution of the contract, varied its terms.

SEC 19. 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.

Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, protects the bona fide purchaser in good faith for
value without notice of the original contract. This protection is in the nature of an exception tot
he general rule. Hence the onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea that
he is in innocent purchaser. Good faith is a question of fact to be considered and decided on the
facts of each case. Section 52 of the Penal Code emphasises due care and attention in relation to
good faith. In the General Clauses Act exphasis is laid on honesty.(Narayana Reddy (deceased)
(D2) and Ors.Vs. P. Chandra Reddy, MANU/TN/7408/2007)

[SUBSTITUTED PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACTS, ETC.]

SEC 20. SUBSTITUTED PERFORMANCE OF 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 own agency, and,
recover the expenses and other costs actually incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party
committing such breach.

(2) No substituted performance of 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: Provided that 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 own agency.
(3) 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.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the party who has suffered breach of contract from
claiming compensation from the party in breach.

SEC 20A. 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.

SEC 20B. 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.

SEC 20C. 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 20 of the Act says:-

 The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary.

 The Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do.
 The discretion of the Court should be arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guarded by
judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal.

Escalation in the price of the land cannot, by itself, be a ground for denying relief of specific
performance. In K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd. (supra), this Court interpreted
Section 20 of the Act and laid down the following propositions: Section 20 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the
court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the
court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of
correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the
Defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the
Plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to
decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been thus statutorily
recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy of consideration or the mere fact that the
contract is onerous to the Defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not constitute an unfair
advantage to the Plaintiff over the Defendant or unforeseeable hardship on the Defendant.
SEC 21. POWER TO AWARD COMPENSATION IN CERTAIN CASES.

(1) In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the plaintiff may also claim compensation for
its breach [in addition to] such performance.

(2) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but
that there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant, and that the
plaintiff is entitled to compensation for that breach, it shall award him such compensation
accordingly.

(3) If, in any such suit, the court decides that specific performance ought to be granted, but that it
is not sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case, and that some compensation for breach of the
contract should also be made to the plaintiff, it shall award him such compensation accordingly.
(4) In determining the amount of any compensation awarded under this section, the court shall be
guided by the principles specified in section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872).

(5) No compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such
compensation in his plaint: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such
compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend
the plaint on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation.

Explanation.—The circumstances that the contract has become incapable of specific

performance does not preclude the court from exercising the jurisdiction conferred by this
section.

SEC 22. POWER TO GRANT RELIEF FOR POSSESSION, PARTITION, REFUND OF

EARNEST MONEY, ETC.

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of
1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable
property may, in an appropriate case, ask for—

(a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property in addition to such
performance; or
(b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or
deposit paid or 1 [made by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

(2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless
it has been specifically claimed: Provident that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such
relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint
on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief.

(3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without
prejudice to its powers to award compensation under section 21.

 The question naturally arises as to whether this false representation disentitles the plaintiffs to
the equitable relief under S. 22 of the Act. As stated earlier, mere false representation is not
enough. It has to be further shown by the defendants that this false representation resulted in
adversely affecting their interest, or it altered the position of the parties in such a way that it
would be inequitable to grant relief to the plaintiffs.( AIR1967AP63,  Vuppalapati Butchiraju
and Anr’s case)

SECTION 23. LIQUIDATION OF DAMAGES NOT A BAR TO SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE.

(1) A contract, otherwise proper to be specifically enforced, may be so enforced, though a sum
be named in itas the amount to be paid in case of its breach and the party in default is willing to
pay the same, if the court, having regard to the terms of the contract and other attending
circumstances, is satisfied that the sum was named only for the purpose of securing performance
of the contract and not for the purpose of giving to the party in default an option of paying
money in lieu of specific performance.

(2) When enforcing specific performance under this section, the court shall not also decree
payment of the sum so named in the contract.

SEC 24. BAR OF SUIT FOR COMPENSATION FOR BREACH AFTER DISMISSAL OF
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
The dismissal of a suit for specific performance of a contract or part thereof shall bar the
plaintiff’s right to sue for compensation for the breach of such contract or part, as the case may
be, but shall not bar his right to sue for any other relief to which he may be entitled, by reason of
such breach.

ENFORCEMENT OF AWARDS AND DIRECTIONS TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENTS

SEC 25. APPLICATION OF PRECEDING SECTIONS TO CERTAIN AWARDS AND

TESTAMENTARY DIRECTIONS TO EXECUTE SETTLEMENTS.

The provisions of this Chapter as to contracts shall apply to awards to which 2 [the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996)], does not apply and to directions in a will or codicil to
execute a particular settlement.

CASE LAWS

In 2016, the Supreme Court in Robin Ramjibhai Patel  v. Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar &
Ors. [SLP (C) No. 31087 of 2014] reiterated that when a plaintiff wants to implead certain
persons as defendants in a suit for specific performance on the ground that they may be adversely
affected by the outcome of the suit, then interest of justice also requires allowing such a prayer
for impleadment so that the persons likely to be affected are aware of the proceedings and may
take appropriate defence as suited to their vendors.

The court also observed that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract
for sale are not only parties to the contract or their legal representatives, but also a person who
had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. (See Here)

In 2017, the Kerala High Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of a
contract only if he sticks to the original terms of the contract. If there is any variation in the terms
of the contract even if it for the benefit of the defendant, the plaintiff will not be entitled to seek
specific performance. (See Here)
IN 2018, the Supreme Court in Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia (Civil Appeal No.  3777
of 2018) held that specific performance and permanent/temporary injunction cannot be claimed
in one suit. This was held for the following reasons:-

1. Specific performance and temporary/permanent injunction cannot be claimed in one

suit as they are independent of each other.
2. The cause of action to claim temporary/permanent injunction against the defendants
from interfering in 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 39 Rule 1 (c) of the Code which deals with the grant of an injunction. The
limitation to file such suit is three years from the date of obstruction caused by the
defendant to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the cause of action to file a suit for claiming specific performance arises from
the date fixed for the performance or when the plaintiff has noticed the non-performance of the
defendant. The limitation to file such suit is three years from such date.

1. When both the reliefs/claims are not:-

1. similar when the causes of action to sue are separate;

2. when the necessary constituents to the respective causes of action for both the
reliefs/claims are different;
3. when both the reliefs/claims are governed by separate sections of the Limitation Act;

then it is impossible to claim both the reliefs together on one cause of action in the same suit.

Another issue arose whether, in absence of permission granted by the trial court at the time of
withdrawing the previous suit in which permanent injunction was claimed, the plaintiff can file a
fresh suit where specific performance will be claimed. The court held that it would consider the
statement made by the plaintiff regarding withdrawal of suit and filing of a fresh suit and this
statement would serve as a part of the order for the same.