Landmark Judgments of Specific Relief Act, 1963
The 18 leading Specific Relief Act, 1963 cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Specific performance — readiness & willingness (S10–16)
- Gomathinayagam Pillai v Palaniswami Nadar In sale of immovable property time is presumptively not of the essence; a purchaser ready and willing within a reasonable time may obtain specific performance.
- Ouseph Varghese v Joseph Aley A plaintiff suing for specific performance must plead and prove the agreement and his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
- N.P. Thirugnanam v R. Jagan Mohan Rao Readiness and willingness must be proved from execution till decree; a plaintiff who never had the funds to pay the price cannot obtain specific performance.
- Syed Dastagir v T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty Compliance with the readiness-and-willingness requirement is to be judged in spirit and substance; no particular phraseology or literal use of statutory words is required.
- Man Kaur v Kartar Singh Sangha Readiness and willingness must be proved by the plaintiff regardless of the defendant's default, and a third party with no personal knowledge cannot prove it even as power-of-attorney holder.
- J.P. Builders v A. Ramadas Rao Readiness refers to the plaintiff's financial capacity and willingness to his conduct; both are mandatory and must coexist, readiness generally being backed by willingness.
Recovery of possession (S5–6)
- Lallu Yeshwant Singh v Rao Jagdish Singh Even a person with title (including a landlord) cannot forcibly dispossess a person in possession otherwise than in due course of law; in a s. 6 suit the court tries only possession and dispossession, not title.
- Nair Service Society Ltd v K.C. Alexander A person dispossessed may recover on prior possession alone against a wrong-doer; the remedies under ss. 5 and 6 are not mutually exclusive and jus tertii is no defence.
- Krishna Ram Mahale v Shobha Venkat Rao A person in settled possession of property cannot be dispossessed by the owner except by recourse to law, even on the assumption that he has no right to remain on the property.
Injunctions — temporary, perpetual & mandatory (S36–42)
- Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. A court cannot grant an injunction restraining a person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a court of coordinate or superior jurisdiction; such relief is statutorily barred.
- Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh Relief of mandatory injunction to recover possession from a licensee cannot be denied merely because the plaint is couched as a mandatory injunction rather than a suit for possession.
- Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh Grant of a temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, exercised through sound judicial discretion.
- Joseph Severance v. Benny Mathew A licensor seeking to evict a licensee within a reasonable time of the licence ending may seek a mandatory injunction; thereafter, the licensee being a trespasser, the proper relief is recovery of possession.
- Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira A caretaker, servant or licensee acquires no possessory interest; courts must be extremely cautious before granting injunctions protecting such occupants against the true owner.
Rescission, rectification, cancellation & declaration (S26-35)
- Prem Singh v Birbal Section 31 covers both void and voidable documents; a voidable document must be got set aside within limitation, but a void document need not be formally cancelled.
- Anathula Sudhakar v P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs A plaintiff in possession may sue for bare injunction; but where title is seriously clouded or disputed, a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief is necessary.
- Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v Randhir Singh An executant of a deed must sue for its cancellation (Section 31) and pay ad valorem court fee; a non-executant need only seek a declaration that the deed is not binding (Section 34) on a fixed fee.
- Venkataraja v Vidyane Doureradjaperumal (dead) through LRs A suit for a mere declaration of title without the consequential relief of possession, where the plaintiff is out of possession, is barred by the proviso to Section 34 and not maintainable.
