Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Plaintiffs Disentitled to Specific Performance Due to Misleading Conduct: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, has reiterated the discretionary and equitable nature of specific performance under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The apex court emphasized that a plaintiff’s conduct is a critical factor in granting specific performance, highlighting that plaintiffs must demonstrate honesty and integrity in their dealings.

The civil appeal involved a dispute over an agreement for the sale of a property in Chandigarh. The plaintiffs, including Major Gen. Darshan Singh, alleged that the property’s possession and price were adjusted after the original agreement. The defendant contested, claiming the property belonged to his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and denying possession transfer. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance given their conduct and the nature of the property as HUF.

Plaintiff’s Conduct and Suit Agreement: The Supreme Court noted discrepancies in the plaintiffs’ statements regarding possession and price, indicating a lack of honesty. The plaintiff’s failure to disclose the HUF status of the property in the plaint was highlighted as misleading.

Specific Performance as Equitable Relief: The Court affirmed that specific performance is granted based on the plaintiff’s conduct. The plaintiffs’ misleading claims and pursuit of full property rights, despite knowing its HUF status, rendered them unfit for this relief.

Modification of Trial Court’s Decree: The apex court modified the lower court’s decree to include interest on the awarded damages, demonstrating a balanced approach.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, affirming the denial of specific performance but modifying the decree to include interest on damages. The decision underscores the importance of truthful and forthright conduct in legal proceedings, especially in equitable remedies like specific performance.

Date of Decision: March 1, 2024.

Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. Vs. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs.

Latest Legal News