#Specific Relief Act

The Orissa HC upheld cancellation of a 2001 sale deed where the plot number was fraudulently altered post-registration, ruling Article 59 limitation runs from fraud discovery in 2020 - not execution - safeguarding owners against time-barred challenges to forged documents.

The Calcutta HC held Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 inapplicable to partition suits where co-sharers have unity of possession, overturning the lower court’s order and clarifying that such suits must be decided on merits in partition proceeding.

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.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a mutation entry based on an unregistered sale deed cannot extinguish the original vendor's title, and clarified that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction relief falls outside the Section 34 Specific Relief Act proviso bar. This protects property owners from losing title through mere revenue entries and preserves access to declaratory relief with ancillary protections.

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 Supreme Court set aside the Indore High Court’s dismissal of a co-ownership suit, restoring the lower courts’ decree. It held that Section 100 CPC permits appellate review only on substantial questions of law, revenue mutations do not extinguish title and limitation begins when the impediment is discovered, shaping future land co-ownership litigation.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a party cannot obtain an interim mandatory injunction to revive a determinable contract; the dispute must proceed to arbitration, with the Rs 1 lakh caution money kept in escrow. This curtails injunctive relief in commercial contracts and reinforces arbitration clauses.

A Division Bench may not set aside a trial judge’s grant of an interim injunction unless the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The Supreme Court said appellate courts can intervene only on a ground of abuse of discretion, leaving the interim relief intact.

The Gujarat High Court affirmed that a trial court may invoke Section 151 CPC to return possession to a lessee who has been unlawfully dispossessed while the underlying suit is pending. It clarified that even a mis-stated statutory citation does not defeat the court’s inherent jurisdiction. This ruling safeguards lessees’ rights to possession during protracted litigation.

The Orissa High Court ruled that Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act prevents an injunction restraining termination of a personal service contract, so the bank could not be barred from dismissing the senior employee. It also clarified that Article 227 cannot replace the statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, limiting interim relief in employment termination disputes.

Madras High Court affirmed specific performance of a 1998 sale deed, rejecting the appellant's forgery allegation and claim that the price was unconscionable. The ruling confirms that a valid deed cannot be set aside on the ground of alleged unfair price, securing the buyer's right to enforce transfer. This impacts parties seeking specific performance in property disputes.

An appellate bench cannot replace a trial judge’s discretionary decision on an Order 39 application unless the lower order is perverse, preserving the trial court’s authority in specific relief matters. This limits higher courts from rewriting factual findings, affecting parties seeking interim injunctions under the Specific Relief Act.

The Karnataka High Court affirmed that mere assertions of readiness and willingness to perform a contract are insufficient under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act - plaintiffs must produce contemporaneous documentary proof such as bank statements, correspondence, or payment records. This sets a clear evidentiary standard for property buyers seeking specific performance, shifting the burden beyond oral claims to verifiable paper trails.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that in suits for specific performance, a plaintiff’s readiness and willingness to perform must be demonstrated not just at filing, but continuously from the date of contract execution through to the final decree. This sets a strict evidentiary standard for buyers seeking equitable relief, especially in property disputes where delays or inconsistent conduct can derail recovery.

Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that the plaintiff’s continuous readiness to perform the contract shifts the burden of proof onto the defendant to disprove coercion or non-compliance. The ruling clarifies procedural compliance under the Specific Relief Act and protects the rights of subsequent purchasers in property disputes.