Specific Performance Case

STUDY ON A CONTRACT WHICH CAN AND CANNOT BE SPECIFICALLY ENFORCE UNDER SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

Introduction

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 was of damages for breach of contract, which gives pecuniary compensation for failure are both, remedies available upon breach of obligation by a party to he contract; the former is ‘substitutional’ remedy, and the latter a ‘specific’ remedy. The remedy of specific performance id granted by way of exception.

The plaintiff seeking this remedy must first satisfy the court that the normal remedy of damages is inadequate;

The dues under the loan were paid back and on denial of reconveyance, the SC upheld the decree of specific performance ordering reconveyance. The mortgage having disposed of the property, the decree was allowed to be enforced against such buyer also.

The shares of a private company have been to be held to be goods of such a nature as they are not easily obtainable in the market. The court, therefore, laid down that specific performance should be granted in such cases. The court cited the following opinion of the Privy Council; “it is the opinion of the Board that having regard to the nature of the company and limited market for its shares, damages would not be an adequate remedy”.

Valid contact in existence

There should be a concluded contact. In the present, there was an agreement for transfer of property. The transferor did not dispute the agreement in his reply to the notice from the transferee. He did not even dispute in his written statement averments made in the plaint as to the agreement. No such plea was raised before HC or the Trial Court. Hence, existence of the agreement was not

Referring to such an agreement in V. Pechimuthu v Gowrammal the SC said: “such an agreement. Not being merely a privilege or concession, such as an option to purchase, granted to the owner, remain an agreement for sale of immovable property and must be governed by the same provisions of law as are applicable to ordinary agreements for sale. Decision as to whether an agreement is an option to purchase or an ordinary agreement depends on interpretation of its terms. It was held on the facts that the reconveyance agreement in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, the original vendor, was an ordinary agreement for sale. The HC in second appeal erred in reversing the decree of specific performance in his favour granted by trial court and affirmed by first appellate