The Specific Relief Act

• I.T.C Limited v. Adarsh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, 2012 (8) JT 188

Supreme Court held that under Section 6 the court is only required to determine following two things:-

(a) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property, and

(b) Whether he has been illegally dispossessed.

• Satish Kumar v. Karan Singh, (2016) 4 SCC 352

Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of contract is based on existence of a valid and enforceable contract. If a valid and enforceable contract has not been made, the court cannot order specific performance of contract.

• Zarina Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2015) 1 SCC 705

Supreme Court held that remedy of specific performance of contract is an equitable remedy.

• Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, (2017) 12 SCC 810

Supreme Court held that relief of part performance cannot be granted where the inability to perform arises because of plaintiff’s own conduct.

• Excel Dealcomm (P) Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd, (2015) 8 SCC 219

Supreme Court held that court cannot grant the relief of possession in a suit for specific performance unless prayer for delivery of possession is not sought specifically.

• Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, (2013) 3 SCC 801

Supreme Court held that rectification under Section 26 is possible only by the parties to the instrument and no one else. This section is applicable only when it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed.

• Kandala Port v. Hargovind Hasraj (2013) 3 SCC 182

Supreme Court held that grant of declaratory decree is discretionary in nature. Court may in appropriate cases refuse to grant declaratory decree.

• Balakrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balakrishna Rambharose Gupta, 2019 (2) SCALE 606

Supreme Court observed that in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in actual possession of the property on the date of suit.

• Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, (2019) 11 SCC 309

Holding that possessory title over property cannot be claimed merely on the basis of ‘casual possession’, the Supreme Court observed that a casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner.

• Hammad Ahmed v. Abdul Majeed, (2019) 14 SCC 1

The Supreme Court observed that grant of interim mandatory injunction is not prohibited, and it can be granted in ‘appropriate’ cases. An ad interim mandatory injunction, is to be granted not at the asking but on strong circumstance so that to protect the rights and interest of the parties so as not to frustrate their rights regarding mandatory injunction.