The Supreme Court has reiterated that the power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right..The observation was made by a Bench of Justices RK Agrawal and AM Sapre in a case relating to transfer of property..By way of background, a sale deed was executed in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 (who are plaintiffs in the Original Suit) by co-owners of the land (except Respondent 3 who owned 1/6th of the land). Respondents 1 and 2 were put in actual possession of the land. However, Respondent 3, the owner of 1/6th share of land, sold her share to Respondent 4..Being aggrieved, Respondents 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) filed an Original Suit for specific performance against Respondent 3 and 4 before the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Hukeri. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff against which an appeal was preferred in the Court of Civil Judge..During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (in the Supreme Court), purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. It was also alleged by the appellant that he was put in possession of the suit property. The Civil Judge, vide judgment and order dated February 25, 2000, partly allowed the appeal while refusing to grant specific performance of the contract..Aggrieved by this, Respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 and ordered the specific performance of the contract provided they pay prevailing market value within 6 (six) months from the date of judgment..The appellant then preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict..The Court noted that the entire case revolved around one question – whether Respondents 1 and 2 got the possession of entire suit land or not?.The Court answered this question in the affirmative by placing reliance on judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsiff, Hukkeri in the Original Suit..“After perusal of the factual matrix of the entire case and peculiar facts, we are of the considered view that on the basis of the finding in OS No. 129 of 1984, it is well established that the present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were put into the possession of entire land. The decree passes by the Munsiff in the year 1987 regarding possession in an independent suit filed in the year 1984 is indicative of the fact that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession.”.On the grant of specific performance, the Court stated that power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot claim it as a matter of right..“It is a well settled law that the power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot claim it as a matter of right although it is lawful but such discretion should be exercised judicially and prudently..The possibility of injury to the interest of third party does not, by itself, disentitle the plaintiff from specific performance but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case which will be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion, the court stated..The instant case, the Court held, was a fit one for grant of specific performance. It, therefore, upheld the judgment of the High court in granting specific performance in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 subject to payment of sale consideration by them as per the present prevailing market..Read the judgment below.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and cannot be claimed as a matter of right..The observation was made by a Bench of Justices RK Agrawal and AM Sapre in a case relating to transfer of property..By way of background, a sale deed was executed in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 (who are plaintiffs in the Original Suit) by co-owners of the land (except Respondent 3 who owned 1/6th of the land). Respondents 1 and 2 were put in actual possession of the land. However, Respondent 3, the owner of 1/6th share of land, sold her share to Respondent 4..Being aggrieved, Respondents 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) filed an Original Suit for specific performance against Respondent 3 and 4 before the Court of the Additional Munsiff, Hukeri. The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff against which an appeal was preferred in the Court of Civil Judge..During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (in the Supreme Court), purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. It was also alleged by the appellant that he was put in possession of the suit property. The Civil Judge, vide judgment and order dated February 25, 2000, partly allowed the appeal while refusing to grant specific performance of the contract..Aggrieved by this, Respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 and ordered the specific performance of the contract provided they pay prevailing market value within 6 (six) months from the date of judgment..The appellant then preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict..The Court noted that the entire case revolved around one question – whether Respondents 1 and 2 got the possession of entire suit land or not?.The Court answered this question in the affirmative by placing reliance on judgment and decree passed by Additional Munsiff, Hukkeri in the Original Suit..“After perusal of the factual matrix of the entire case and peculiar facts, we are of the considered view that on the basis of the finding in OS No. 129 of 1984, it is well established that the present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were put into the possession of entire land. The decree passes by the Munsiff in the year 1987 regarding possession in an independent suit filed in the year 1984 is indicative of the fact that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession.”.On the grant of specific performance, the Court stated that power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot claim it as a matter of right..“It is a well settled law that the power to order specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot claim it as a matter of right although it is lawful but such discretion should be exercised judicially and prudently..The possibility of injury to the interest of third party does not, by itself, disentitle the plaintiff from specific performance but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case which will be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion, the court stated..The instant case, the Court held, was a fit one for grant of specific performance. It, therefore, upheld the judgment of the High court in granting specific performance in favour of Respondents 1 and 2 subject to payment of sale consideration by them as per the present prevailing market..Read the judgment below.
