#Specific Performance

Bombay HC Division Bench grants Section 9 injunction to doctor-investors, barring land alienation to protect specific performance claim after 21-year developer default on delivery and IOD, reversing Single Judge's denial. The decision underscores Section 9's role in preventing arbitration frustration where prolonged inaction threatens the subject matter.

The Delhi High Court held that a buyer’s awareness of existing mortgage defeats a fraud claim for refund of sale consideration. The court applied caveat emptor, holding that knowledge of encumbrances negates fraud claims and bars vexatious suits.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

SC barred a specific performance suit on an oral land sale agreement, holding no contract and the claim omitted in a prior suit without leave. Order II Rule 2 CPC requires leave to add omitted relief, affecting oral property litigants.

Indian law governs the SAP support contract, the Delhi High Court held, rejecting the defendant's claim that EU sanctions excuse performance absent proof and ordering restoration of services to keep the refinery running.

MPHC held lis pendens binds subsequent purchasers, affirming specific performance and ordering execution of sale deed in plaintiff’s favor despite bona fide purchase, confirming Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act overrides innocent buyer defenses.

The Madras High Court ruled that an executing court cannot set aside a specific performance decree based on a judgment that did not examine the sale agreement, and that a pendente lite purchaser has no right to resist execution under Section 47 CPC.

The ruling confirms that buyers may approach consumer forums for relief despite an arbitration clause in a development agreement, and that a co-owner’s absence does not defeat the claim, reinforcing CPA 1986 as a supplementary remedy over arbitration.

The NCDRC ruled that third-party cheques cannot constitute a refund without proof of homebuyer authorization, setting aside a State Commission order that had limited relief to refund. The Commission ordered specific performance with a tiered remedy: possession, an alternative flat, or refund at 18% contractual interest plus 21% penal interest for default within three months.

The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.

The Calcutta High Court held that an oral agreement for land sale, evidenced by parties' conduct, establishes a prima facie case for specific performance warranting a temporary injunction. The court ruled the suit does not fall under the Commercial Courts Act, and a plea for alternative damages does not disentitle the plaintiff from injunctive relief.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an insufficiently stamped agreement for sale in a specific performance suit must be impounded under the Indian Stamp Act rather than leading to dismissal of the suit. The court remanded the matter for payment of deficit stamp duty and adjudication on merits, clarifying that stamp deficiency is a curable procedural defect, not a substantive bar to relief.

A Madras High Court second appeal confirmed that an ex-parte decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be set aside when the balance sale price is deposited after an unreasonable delay. The decision upholds the 1988 sale deed and signals that delayed payments defeat specific-performance orders, affecting buyers and sellers in property deals.

The Delhi High Court overturned two district-court possession orders, ruling that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be invoked to obtain possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and does not attract the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This limits claimants from using informal sale agreements to secure possession of property.

The West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the developers to complete and register the deed of conveyance for the complainants’ flat within 45 days, awarding Rs 1 lakh compensation and Rs 25,000 litigation costs. This affirms that Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can compel specific performance in real-estate transactions, safeguarding flat buyers from undue delay.