By compelling the parties to perform exactly what they had agreed to perform, more complete and perfect justice is achieved than by awarding damages for a breach of contract. Specific performance can be granted only by a court in the exercise of its EQUITY powers, subsequent to a determination of whether a valid contract that can be enforced exists and an evaluation of the relief sought.
Damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of ordinary personal property are, in most cases, readily ascertainable and recoverable so that specific performance will not be granted. An important advantage to this remedy is that, since it is an order of an equity court, it is supported by the enforcement power of that court. Monetary damages are a type of legal remedy with its own set of requirements. In order to obtain specific performance in New York, the non-breaching party must prove four elements:.
Specific performance is typically awarded when money cannot adequately compensate the injured party and when the contractual obligation is unique or difficult to value. Typically, a defendant will try to argue that monetary damages are available and that there is a method to calculate damages with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
As an equitable remedy, a defendant can also defend against an award of specific performance if they can demonstrate serious unfairness, undue hardship or unreasonable prejudicial delay. A breach of contract can give rise to different remedies depending on the circumstances.
It is important to consult an attorney before entering into any agreements and prior to bringing a lawsuit in order to protect your rights and seek appropriate recovery for your losses. This Blog is made available by Romano Law PLLC for general informational and educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this Blog you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and Romano Law PLLC or any individual contributor.
You should consult a licensed professional attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. Book Now. Subramani [21] , the Supreme Court held that on failure to pray for and seek to declare that a termination was wrongful the further relief to perform the terminated agreement could not be granted:.
As could be seen from the prayer sought for in the original suit, the plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare the termination of agreement of sale as bad in law. In the absence of such prayer by the plaintiff the original suit filed by him before the trial court for grant of decree for specific performance in respect of the suit scheduled property on the basis of agreement of sale and consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction is not maintainable in law.
The provisions of Section 22 [22] must also be considered when seeking relief in cases where the plaintiff is not in possession of the land or property in dispute. Adcon Electronics P Ltd. Daulat [23]. In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property containing a stipulation that on execution of the sale deed the possession of the immovable property will be handed over to the purchaser, it is implied that delivery of possession of the immovable property is part of the decree of specific performance of contract.
But in this connection it is necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, It may be seen that sub-section 1 is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit of specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses a and b thereof.
Clause a contains reliefs of possession and partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The mandate of sub-section 2 of Section 22 is that no relief under clauses a and b of sub-section 1 shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed.
Thus it follows that no court can grant the relief of possession of land or other immovable property, subject-matter of the agreement for sale in regard to which specific performance is claimed, unless the possession of the immovable property is specifically prayed for.
Who are the necessary parties to a suit for specific performance. It is not unusual that during the pendency of an action or even before in case a party to the contract creates third party rights then such persons claiming title from one of the contracting parties becomes a necessary party. Who would be appropriate parties to a suit for performance would depend on the facts of a case, Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Section 19 [24] of the Act which provides an indication.
The Supreme Court in Kasturi case [25] has succinctly laid down the principles to consider i. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal [26]. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule 2 CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor.
In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party.
Tests are — 1 there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; 2 no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. That apart, from a plain reading of Section 19 of the Act we are also of the view that this section is exhaustive on the question as to who are the parties against whom a contract for specific performance may be enforced. In cases where there is a transfer of the suit property by the contracting party and then the party in default suffers a decree for performance the proper form of a decree is as laid down in Durga Prasad v.
Deep Chand [27] where it was held that the defendant and the transferee must join in the performance. The principle was again applied recently in Vijay A. Mittal v. Kulwant Rai. The question arose before this Court in Durga Prasad v. Deep Chand as to what form of decree should be passed in the case of specific performance of contract where the suit property is sold by the defendant i.
The learned Judge, Vivian Bose, J. The practice of the courts in India has not been uniform and three distinct lines of thought emerge. According to one point of view, the proper form of decree is to declare the subsequent purchase void as against the prior transferee and direct conveyance by the vendor alone. A second considers that both vendor and vendee should join, while a third would limit execution of the conveyance to the subsequent purchaser alone.
According to the Supreme Court, the proper form of decree is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the prior transferee and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the prior transferee. He does not join in any special covenants made between the prior transferee and his vendor; all he does is to pass on his title to the prior transferee.
Limitation for an action. The prescribed period of limitation for a suit of specific performance is three years from the date fixed for performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused [31].
Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas [32]. A mere reading of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would show that if the date is fixed for performance of the agreement, then non-compliance with the agreement on the date would give a cause of action to file suit for specific performance within three years from the date so fixed.
However, when no such date is fixed, limitation of three years to file a suit for specific performance would begin when the plaintiff has noticed that the defendant has refused the performance of the agreement. The case at hand admittedly does not fall in the first category of Article 54 of the Limitation Act because as observed supra, no date was fixed in the agreement for its performance. The case would thus be governed by the second category viz. As mentioned above, it was the case of the plaintiff that she came to know on and that the owner of the suit house along with the so-called intending purchaser are trying to dispossess her from the suit house on the strength of their ownership over the suit house.
This event was, therefore, rightly taken as starting point of refusal to perform the agreement by Defendant 2, resulting in giving notice to Defendant 2 by the plaintiff on and then filing of suit on Court Passing the decree retains control over the decree even after the decree is passed. This principle enables the Court to provide assistance to the successful Plaintiff even after the decree to effectuate complete satisfaction of the relief claimed and prevent it from being rendered useless.
Haridas Mundhra [33] explained the power of the Court in the following terms:. It is settled by a long course of decisions of the Indian High Courts that the Court which passes a decree for specific performance retains control over the decree even after the decree has been passed. In Mahommadalli Sahib v. Abdul Khadir Saheb [34] ,it was held that the Court which passes a decree for specific performance has the power to extend the time fixed in the decree for the reason that Court retains control over the decree, that the contract between the parties is not extinguished by the passing of a decree for specific performance and that the contract subsists notwithstanding the passing of the decree.
In Pearisundari Dassee v.
0コメント