{"id":306489,"date":"2023-11-05T12:00:16","date_gmt":"2023-11-05T06:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=306489"},"modified":"2023-11-05T16:53:53","modified_gmt":"2023-11-05T11:23:53","slug":"sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Madras High Court (‘High Court’), the three-judges bench of Mehr Chand Mahajan, Chandrasekhara Aiyar*<\/span> and N.H. Bhagwati, JJ., opined that whatever might be the real truth about the title of the property, it was not to be decided in the present case as the respondent’s father was not made party in the suit and also, the respondent could not be allowed to urge his own defective title as an answer to a suit for specific performance by the purchaser. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest, whatever it might be, would pass under the same.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

On 23-8-1941, an agreement was entered between Somasundaram Chettiar and the respondent for the sale of certain lands that belonged to the defendant at a price of Rs. 1000 per acre. As per the agreement, payment of Rs. 500 was to be paid in advance and the remaining balance was to be paid in fifteen days. Subsequently, the sale deed was executed and registered. The agreement also contained a further clause, wherein it was stated that, as the properties were in the name of the respondent’s father, he should get his signature as a witness in the sale deed.<\/p>\n

Thereafter the suit was filed by Somasundaram Chettiar for the specific performance of the agreement and prayer was made for execution of a deed of conveyance for possession of the properties covered by the agreement and for the profit for the year 1951 and subsequent profits at the same rate till delivery of possession.<\/p>\n

The respondent stated that his father’s consent was a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under the agreement and as the father had not given his consent, Somasundaram Chettiar was not entitled to enforce the agreement.<\/p>\n

The Subordinate Judge of Madura concluded that there was a concluded agreement for sale and the father’s consent was not a condition precedent. Thus, a decree was passed for specific performance of the agreement and two months possession time was granted for the execution of the sale deed. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal and the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura was reversed by the High Court.<\/p>\n

Thus, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court observed that the final agreement was preceded by the draft agreement and in that draft, there was originally a clause that if it was necessary, the defendant’s father should also jointly execute the sale deed. However, this clause was removed from the final agreement because it was admitted that the respondent himself told to remove that clause because his father had no interest in the lands. Thereafter, Somasundaram Chettiar’s pleader suggested that the respondent’s father should attest the sale deed which was accepted by the respondent. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent had tried to get out of the difficulty by stating that he did not read the document and he did not know the Tamil manuscript, but the respondent had admitted in his evidence that the document was read over to him.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that in the letter dated 30-08-1941, which was addressed to the son of Somasundaram Chettiar, the respondent had expressed his inability to convey the land or effect the sale as his father had refuse to give consent, but he did not state that such condition was a condition precedent to the agreement being enforced.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that the respondent’s father was not the party to the suit and was dead. If he died before the respondent, any title of the respondent acquired from his father would be bound by the decree and if he died after the defendant, principle of estoppel under Section 41<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882<\/a> might arise.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court opined that if the title of the property was with the father, it was likely that there was condition precedent, but if it was not with the father, it might be that the parties thought that the father’s consent was more or less a formality and would be forthcoming. However, after considering all the evidence brought forth by the petitioner and respondent, the Supreme Court opined that whatever might be the real truth about the title of the property, it was not to be decided in the present case as the father of the respondent was not made a party and also, the respondent could not be allowed to urge his own defective title as an answer to a suit for specific performance by the purchaser. The Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest, whatever it might be, would pass under the same.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Supreme Court opined that it was unable to affirm the finding of the High Court that there was a condition precedent which was not fulfilled and accordingly, allowed the present appeal. The Supreme Court further stated that the appellant would have two months from 10-12-1952 to deposit Rs 22,790 into the Trial Court and within two months, the respondents would execute a deed of conveyance of the properties which are specified in the appellant’s favour.<\/p>\n

[Kannappa Chettiar v. Abbas Ali, (1952) 2 SCC 124<\/a>, decided on 10-12-1952<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by- Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Note: Specific performance in cases of imperfect title under Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a><\/p>\n

Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the right of purchasers against person with no title or imperfect title. As per the provision, where subsequent to the contract, if the vendor has acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser may compel to sell or let on hire such interest. Further, where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating the title, then the purchaser may compel the vendor to procure such concurrence. Section 13(1)(d) specifies that where the vendor filed a suit for the specific performance of contract and the suit is dismissed on the ground of his imperfect title, the defendant has right to return a deposit with interest to his cost of the suit.<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Appellant:<\/span> M.C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (G.R. Jagadisa Iyer, Advocate, with him);<\/p>\n

For the Respondent<\/span>: V.T. Rangaswamy Iyengar, Senior Advocate (R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate, with him)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on specific performance in imperfect title.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":306579,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[62501,62502,58925,39111,32503,50574,5363,36307],"class_list":["post-306489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-defective-title","tag-imperfect-title","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-purchaser","tag-specific-performance","tag-specific-relief-act-1963","tag-supreme-court","tag-vendor"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on specific performance in cases of imperfect title| SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-11-05T06:30:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-05T11:23:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on specific performance in cases of imperfect title| SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-11-05T06:30:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-05T11:23:53+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"vendor defective title specific performance\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on specific performance in cases of imperfect title| SCC Blog","description":"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]","og_description":"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-11-05T06:30:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-05T11:23:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on specific performance in cases of imperfect title| SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp","datePublished":"2023-11-05T06:30:16+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-05T11:23:53+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Supreme Court opined that the respondent was bound by law to execute a conveyance as per the agreement, and his right, title or interest would pass under the same.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"vendor defective title specific performance"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/05\/sc-vendor-not-allowed-to-urge-his-defective-title-in-specific-performance-suit-by-purchaser-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Never Reported Judgement| Vendor cannot urge his defective title as an answer in specific performance suit by purchaser [(1952) 2 SCC 124]"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/vendor-defective-title-specific-performance.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":319646,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/07\/sc-purchaser-is-not-willing-to-perform-his-part-of-contract-if-he-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":0},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| Purchaser cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part of contract, if he does not treat the contract as subsisting [(1953) 1 SCC 234]","author":"Arushi","date":"April 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on personal bars to relief in specific performance of contract.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"purchaser not ready and willing if did not treat contract as subsisting","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/purchaser-not-ready-and-willing-if-did-not-treat-contract-as-subsisting.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273195,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/07\/specific-performance-willingness-and-readiness-to-pay-a-condition-precedent-legal-news-legal-updates-limitation-law-supreme-court-specific-relief-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":1},"title":"Explained| Party willing to pay but has no funds: Will it amount to readiness and willingness for specific performance of a contract?","author":"Editor","date":"September 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the terms willingness and readiness to pay. Reversing the concurrent orders of the Courts below, the Court held that the Respondent Plaintiff may have been willing to perform his\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52-1-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52-1-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52-1-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-52-1-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":305898,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/29\/when-sc-determined-title-to-hadapsar-lands-that-remained-undivided-in-partition-of-family-property-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":2},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When Supreme Court determined title to Pune\u2019s Hadapsar lands that remained undivided in partition of family property [(1952) 2 SCC 104]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"October 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on partition of Hadapsar lands under Hindu law.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"partition Hindu Law","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/partition-Hindu-Law.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/partition-Hindu-Law.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/partition-Hindu-Law.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/partition-Hindu-Law.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":329327,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/08\/25\/when-sc-dismissed-specific-performance-suit-due-to-flimsy-oral-evidence-for-existence-of-agreement-to-sell-immovable-property\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":3},"title":"NRJ Series | When Supreme Court dismissed specific performance suit due to \u2018flimsy\u2019 oral evidence for existence of agreement to sell immovable property [(1953) 2 SCC 257]","author":"Arushi","date":"August 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment, on suit for specific performance, dating back to the year 1953.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"suit for specific performance","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":310919,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/07\/claim-of-adverse-possession-cannot-be-sustained-on-basis-of-discontinuous-irregular-acts-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":4},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | Claim of adverse possession cannot be sustained on basis of discontinuous and irregular acts [(1952) 2 SCC 468]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"January 7, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court\u2019s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on claim of adverse possession.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"claim of adverse possession","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/claim-of-adverse-possession.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295105,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/21\/undertaking-of-licensee-does-not-end-revocation-of-license-section-5-electricity-act-sc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":306489,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment| \u2018Undertaking\u2019 of licensee does not come to an end on revocation of licence under S.5 of Electricity Act, 1910: SC","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 21, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment, dating back to the year 1950, on Section 5 of the Electricity Act, 1910.","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"section 5 of electricity act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/section-5-of-electricity-act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=306489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/306489\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/306579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=306489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=306489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=306489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}