Case Study _ Specific Relief Act

Posted on February 28, 2026 by Admin

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.