1️⃣ Delay + Price Escalation
Q. A agrees in 2010 to sell land to B. Performance fixed within 6 months. B files suit in 2014. Property value increased five times. Only 10% advance paid. Decide.
Answer:
Law: Article 54 Limitation Act; Section 16(c); principles in K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan and Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi.
Application: If suit within 3 years from refusal, limitation satisfied. However, long inaction + minimal advance may indicate lack of diligence.
Conclusion: Court may refuse SP if conduct inequitable; else grant with balance + interest.
2️⃣ Plaintiff Did Not Enter Witness Box
Q. Plaintiff relies on GPA holder; does not depose personally. Can readiness be proved?
Answer:
Law: Section 16(c); Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha.
Application: Personal readiness must be proved by plaintiff unless attorney has direct knowledge.
Conclusion: Likely dismissal.
3️⃣ No Financial Capacity
Q. Plaintiff pleads readiness but bank records show insufficient funds.
Answer:
Law: N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao.
Application: Pleading alone insufficient; financial incapacity fatal.
Conclusion: SP refused.
4️⃣ Determinable Development Agreement
Q. Agreement terminable by notice; developer seeks SP.
Answer:
Law: Section 14(d).
Application: Determinable contracts not enforceable.
Conclusion: SP barred; damages only.
5️⃣ Substituted Performance Taken
Q. After breach, plaintiff gets work done via third party and then files SP suit.
Answer:
Law: Section 20 (post-2018).
Application: Once substituted performance exercised after notice, SP barred.
Conclusion: Only recovery of expenses allowed.
6️⃣ Minor’s Property Sold by Guardian Without Permission
Q. Guardian sells minor’s land without court approval.
Answer:
Law: Guardian requires court permission.
Application: Transaction voidable at minor’s instance.
Conclusion: SP cannot be granted against minor.
7️⃣ Oral Agreement + Possession
Q. Buyer claims oral contract + possession + part payment.
Answer:
Law: Oral contracts enforceable if proved.
Application: Heavy burden; possession corroborative.
Conclusion: If clearly proved → SP granted; else dismissed.
8️⃣ Unregistered Agreement to Sell
Q. Defendant objects that agreement unregistered.
Answer:
Law: S. Kaladevi v. V. R. Somasundaram.
Application: Agreement admissible for SP though not for title transfer.
Conclusion: Suit maintainable.
9️⃣ Oral Extension of Time
Q. Contract fixed 3 months; oral extension claimed.
Answer:
Law: Article 54.
Application: Extension must be strictly proved.
Conclusion: If proved → limitation from refusal; else original date.
🔟 Suppression of Acquisition Proceedings
Q. Plaintiff hides fact of pending acquisition.
Answer:
Law: Equity principle.
Application: Suppression disentitles relief.
Conclusion: SP refused.
1️⃣1️⃣ Land Declared Forest
Q. After agreement, land declared forest land.
Answer:
Law: Section 14 (impossibility).
Conclusion: SP barred.
1️⃣2️⃣ Sale Subject to Government Approval
Q. Approval never granted.
Answer:
Law: Contingent contract principles.
Conclusion: SP cannot be granted.
1️⃣3️⃣ Undervaluation / Illegal Consideration
Q. Agreement undervalued; black money involved.
Answer:
Law: Equity denies illegal contracts.
Conclusion: SP refused.
1️⃣4️⃣ Vendor Dies Before Suit
Q. Legal heirs deny agreement.
Answer:
Law: Contract binds legal representatives.
Conclusion: Suit maintainable.
1️⃣5️⃣ Escalation Alone Defence
Q. Defendant argues property value increased.
Answer:
Law: B. Santoshamma v. D. Sarala.
Application: Escalation alone insufficient.
Conclusion: SP may be granted if plaintiff ready.
1️⃣6️⃣ Possession for 15 Years
Q. Buyer in possession long; no suit earlier.
Answer:
Law: Adverse possession principles.
Conclusion: If hostile possession proved → title by adverse possession; SP unnecessary.
1️⃣7️⃣ Uncertain Property Description
Q. Boundaries unclear.
Answer:
Law: Section 29.
Conclusion: If uncertainty substantial → SP refused.
1️⃣8️⃣ Bona Fide Purchaser
Q. Seller sells to C; C claims no notice.
Answer:
Law: Section 19(b).
Application: If bona fide without notice → protected.
Conclusion: SP not enforceable against C.
1️⃣9️⃣ Agreement to Lend Money
Q. Plaintiff seeks SP of loan agreement.
Answer:
Law: Generally not specifically enforceable.
Conclusion: Damages only.
2️⃣0️⃣ Joint Business for 20 Years
Q. Contract requires long supervision.
Answer:
Law: Section 14 (continuous supervision).
Conclusion: SP barred.
🎯 Master Decision Formula for Exam
For every SP problem:
-
Check Limitation (Art. 54)
-
Check Readiness (Sec 16(c))
-
Check Bar (Sec 14)
-
Check Equity
-
Apply Facts
-
Conclude Clearly