Court Cannot Rewrite Contract for the Plaintiff: No Specific Performance When Agreement Lacks Boundaries and Plaintiff Silent on Partial Alienation: Telangana High Court

In a latest judgement Telangana High Court set aside a decree of specific performance previously granted by a Trial Court, holding that the agreement of sale lacked essential particulars and that the plaintiff failed to either plead or prove his case under Section 12(2) of the Specific Relief Act. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sambasiva Rao Naidu and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao categorically ruled that “no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief”, quoting Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal [(2008) 17 SCC 491].

The High Court stressed that mere assertions of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act were not backed by tangible actions or evidence, and the conduct of the plaintiff did not justify the grant of equitable relief. The Court found multiple lapses both in the document relied upon (Ex.A1) and in the trial court’s reasoning.

“Where a Contract is Defective and Plaintiff Has Neither Pleaded Nor Proved His Right Under Section 12(2), Specific Performance Must Be Denied”

In a significant verdict impacting the law on specific performance, the Telangana High Court, on 7th November 2025, reversed a decree of specific performance in Mohd. Imamuddin vs. Nukala Ravinder Reddy, observing that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit despite serious deficiencies in the contract, lack of proper pleadings under Section 12(2) of the Specific Relief Act, and insufficient evidence of readiness and willingness. The Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.

The case arose from a suit filed in OS No. 111 of 2012 by the respondent-plaintiff, claiming specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 31.08.2012 for agricultural land measuring Acs. 3-21 guntas in Survey No. 156, situated in Laxmapuram Village. The sale consideration was fixed at ₹2,21,000 per acre, totaling ₹7,79,025. The plaintiff allegedly paid a token advance of ₹4,500. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant refused to receive further payments and perform his part of the contract, despite repeated requests and issuance of a legal notice.

The Trial Court decreed the suit on 30.06.2017, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration. Aggrieved by the decree, the defendant appealed.

The High Court identified several crucial legal issues and analyzed them in light of settled principles:

Existence and Validity of the Contract: Absence of Boundaries

The Court was critical of the very foundation of the plaintiff’s case—the agreement of sale (Ex.A1). It found that the document did not contain the village name or boundaries, was written on plain paper, and only subsequently stamped, raising serious concerns about its authenticity.

“Ex.A1 does not have any boundaries, and there is no explanation from the plaintiff as to how the boundaries in the plaint were arrived at.” [Para 31]

The Court held that in the absence of boundaries or a clear schedule, specific performance of such a vague contract is impermissible, especially when the plaintiff failed to explain these deficiencies.

Effect of Defendant’s Sale of 7½ Guntas to Government – Section 12(2) Specific Relief Act

During the pendency of the suit, the defendant sold 7½ guntas of the suit property to the Government via Ex.A5 on 04.05.2016. The plaintiff did not amend his pleadings to seek performance for the remaining property or invoke Section 12(2), which deals with specific performance of a part of the contract.

“Though Section 12(2) permits specific performance of remaining land, plaintiff never pleaded or prayed for such relief before trial court; first attempt raised only in appeal—held impermissible.” [Para 30–31]

The Court relied on Hemanta Mondal and Bachhaj Nahar to reiterate the settled principle that a new case cannot be built at the appellate stage without pleadings in the trial court.

Readiness and Willingness – Mere Assertions Not Enough

The plaintiff had claimed to be ready and willing under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act but had only paid ₹4,500 out of ₹7,79,025. The Court found no evidence of any further substantial steps taken by the plaintiff to perform his obligations.

“Plaintiff has paid a pittance of ₹4,500… but there is no material on record to show that he has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of the contract.” [Para 32]

The Court stressed that equitable relief like specific performance requires consistent and credible conduct on the part of the plaintiff, which was lacking here.

Discretion Under Section 20 – Trial Court’s Mechanical Approach Criticized

The Court sharply criticized the Trial Court for failing to exercise discretion judicially. It found that the lower court had decreed specific performance without considering key facts such as:

• Absence of boundaries in Ex.A1

• Partial alienation of land under Ex.A5

• Plaintiff’s silence about Section 12(2)

• No evidence of hardship to the defendant

“The learned Trial Court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction while declaring the suit for specific performance.” [Para 38]

Citing Satish Kumar and Hemanta Mondal, the Court observed that judicial discretion under Section 20 is not automatic and should be exercised after considering equity and fairness.

No Claim for Refund or Compensation – Section 21 & 22 Not Invoked

The Court also noted that the plaintiff did not seek any refund of the advance or compensation under Sections 21 or 22 of the Specific Relief Act, and hence no such relief could be granted suo motu.

“This Court is estopped from awarding compensation or refund of earnest money in absence of any prayer.” [Para 39]

Details of the Judgment

The High Court conclusively held:

• Ex.A1 is not a valid or enforceable contract;

• Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness;

• Section 12(2) cannot be invoked for the first time in appeal;

• Trial Court failed to exercise discretion properly under Section 20.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the decree dated 30.06.2017 was set aside, and the suit dismissed without costs.

“In the result, appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed… is set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.” [Para 40]

This decision reiterates the settled principles that specific performance is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, and contracts lacking in certainty and clarity cannot be enforced. The judgment is a strong reaffirmation that pleadings form the backbone of civil litigation, and a party cannot seek new reliefs or shift positions at the appellate stage.

By refusing to grant specific performance on a flawed and vague agreement, the Telangana High Court has set a clear precedent on the enforceability of defective contracts and the rigorous application of equitable principles under the Specific Relief Act.

Date of Decision: 07.11.2025