- Case
- VIJAY PRABHU v. S.T. LAJAPATHIE (Supreme Court of India, 08-01-2025)
- Law
- Specific Relief Act.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: The judgment extensively discusses Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, focusing on specific performance of part of a contract. The High Court in Para 35 observed that when a plaintiff waives one of the obligations that remained unfulfilled by the defendants, it is not open to the plaintiff to seek shelter under Section 12 and claim specific performance of part of the agreement. The court also noted that the plaintiff, apart from seeking specific performance, also claimed damages besides refund of advance, disqualifying him from invoking clause (ii) of Sub-Section (3) to Section 12, as he had not relinquished "all claims". The court held that Section 12(3) is a discretionary relief and cannot be invoked where the terms of the contract are not capable of being segregated. The judgment also refers to Section 12(1), which provides that specific performance can be granted on part of a contract only in the circumstances mentioned in the section. Section 12(2) deals with breach of contract if a party is unable to perform the whole of its part and such part bears a small proportion to the whole in value and admits compensation in money. The expression "unable to perform" in Section 12(2) would mean that a part of the property destroyed after contract or act of God. Section 12(3) states that a party in default is entitled to specific performance on payment of whole consideration or for the part left unperformed. The judgment clarifies that Section 12 does not apply where the inability to perform specific performance arises because of the plaintiff's own conduct. The court also discusses the interpretation of "considerable part" and "does not admit of compensation" in the context of Section 12. The judgment also refers to old Section 15 of the Act in the context of relinquishment of claim.
