Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877).......... .......... Section 12..........Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell..........Escalation in price of suit property during pendency of litigation..........Whether such escalation should be considered as a factor to deny the plaintiff a decree of specific performance..........Rise in the price of immovable property by itself was not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement to sell..........Court should consider as to who was the defaulting party and whether a party was trying to take undue advantage over the other and also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant..........Totality of the circumstances was required to be seen in this regard..........Principles. Ordinarily the plaintiff was not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of escalation of price during pendency of litigation. As a general rule it could not be held that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have the entire benefit of escalation of price of the suit property during pendency of litigation. On balancing equities one of the considerations to be kept in view was as to who was the defaulting party and whether a party was trying to take undue advantage over the other and also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant. Totality of the circumstances was required to be seen in this regard. Nirmala Anand v. Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others AIR 2002 SC 2290 and P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi and another AIR 2007 SC 1256 ref. Facts of present case showed that the plaintiff who had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property had proved the agreement and thereafter had established, as a fact, that he had not defaulted in complying with any of his obligations under the said agreement, and that it was the defendant alone who had backed out and breached his obligation under the agreement on account of which the plaintiff immediately filed a suit. On direction of the High Court the plaintiff also deposited in court whole of the balance consideration for purchasing the suit property. Thus, apparently there was no default on the part of plaintiff in making compliance of his…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492