{"id":329327,"date":"2024-08-25T11:00:24","date_gmt":"2024-08-25T05:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=329327"},"modified":"2024-08-25T12:00:21","modified_gmt":"2024-08-25T06:30:21","slug":"when-sc-dismissed-specific-performance-suit-due-to-flimsy-oral-evidence-for-existence-of-agreement-to-sell-immovable-property","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"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\/","title":{"rendered":"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]"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The present appeal was filed by the appellant, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain immovable property, entered between Respondent 1 and the appellant, the three-Judges Bench of M.C. Mahajan, B.K. Mukherjea and B. Jagannadhadas*<\/span>, JJ., stated that the actual evidence in the present case relating to the agreement was entirely oral and of a very flimsy character. The earlier mention of this arrangement was when it was put forward in the notice dated 29-5-1942 issued by the appellant. Meanwhile, Respondent 1 mortgaged the suit properties on 31-12-1940 and sold one item to Respondent 3 on 1-7-1941. There was no written protest about these transactions issued by the appellant to Respondent 1.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that it was sufficient to say that on the provided evidence, it was not possible to find in favour of the appellant and to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a clear and definite agreement for reconveyance of which she could seek specific performance from the Court. The Trial Judge in accepting the oral evidence for the appellant, without adequate scrutiny, had been unduly carried away by the alleged background of circumstances which, if at all, were of remote relevancy on the direct issue in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the present case, the agreement on which the suit was based, was not in writing but it was an oral arrangement between Respondent 1 and the appellant’s husband, on the appellant’s behalf, with her knowledge and in her presence. The suit properties belonged to the family of the appellant’s husband and fell to his share at a family partition in 1935. Under the said partition, the appellant’s husband undertook the payment of certain specified family debts. After the partition, the appellant’s husband raised money on a mortgage for Rs. 2600 from one Harinatha Ayyar for discharging the family debts which he had undertaken.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, one Harinatha Ayyar filed a suit and obtained a final decree on 29-1-1940. During execution, the properties were brought to sale and were purchased by Respondent 1 on 7-10-1940 for a sum of Rs, 5000 and he took delivery of the same in December 1940. Subsequently, one item of the properties was sold by Respondent 1 to Respondent 3 for a sum of Rs. 400 on 1-7-1941 and the rest of the properties were sold to Respondent 2 for a sum of Rs. 13,500.<\/p>\n

The appellant and her husband contended that when the mortgage decree was under execution and the property was about to be sold, they were anxious to retain the family property. Therefore, sometime before the actual sale, an arrangement was entered into between the appellant’s husband and Respondent 1, that Respondent 1 was to purchase the property at the court-auction, take possession and convey the same to the appellant on paying the price at which the Respondent 1 purchased in court sale with interest.<\/p>\n

Appellant further contended that when the agreement arrived between them, as sum of Rs. 1500 was paid by her to Respondent 1, through her husband of which Rs. 500 was to be taken as advance towards the final consideration under the contemplated reconveyance and the other sum of Rs. 1000 was to be utilised for payment to one Krishnamurthi Ayyar. This sum of Rs. 1000 was said to be outside the consideration for the prospective sale. In the Trial Court, the suit was decreed against Respondents 1 and 2, but was dismissed against Respondent 3 on the ground that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice. Thereafter, on appeal by Respondents 1 and 2, the decree of the Trial Court was reversed and the appellant’s suit dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

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

The Supreme Court observed that the appellant’s husband’s family consisted of his father, the appellant himself, and four other brothers. Of these, one of the brothers was given away in adoption. The family-owned substantial properties consisting of lands and houses which were partitioned between them in the year 1935. After the partition, the father, and the two brothers, were adjudged insolvents on 2-3-1937 on a creditor’s petition. The shares allotted to the three insolvents became vested in the Official Receiver and the shares of the other two brothers were kept under the management of the Official Receiver with their consent.<\/p>\n

After examination of material evidences, the Supreme Court noticed that somewhat unusual steps which one of the appellant’s brothers (‘PW 1’) took in getting the upset price reduced and the sale effected in one lot, might be some indication of his anxiety to get an accommodating purchaser who would be willing to give it back to him on easy terms. It might also be assumed that PW 1 was anxious to get as much of the property as possible into the hands of his family members or relations. All this, however, was very far from making out the agreement with Respondent 1. The Supreme Court scrutinised the oral evidence in the record and stated that there was nothing in this portion of the evidence indicating that either the appellant or anybody else was present at the time when the conversation took place between the appellant’s husband and Respondent 1 and when the money was paid. The agreement had not been reduced to writing and the payment of money was not vouched for by any receipt and no satisfactory reason for the same had been assigned.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that the actual evidence in the present case relating to the agreement was entirely oral and of a very flimsy character. The earlier mention of this arrangement was when it was put forward in the notice dated 29-5-1942 issued by the appellant. Meanwhile Respondent 1 mortgaged the suit properties on 31-12-1940 and sold one item to Respondent 3 on 1-7-1941. There was no written protest about these transactions issued by the appellant to Respondent 1. The Supreme Court stated that there were quite a few other items of conduct on the part of PW 1 after the court auction purchase, which gave room for the comment that his conduct was not consistent with the existence of any such agreement as was pleaded.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that why of all persons, Respondent 1 was the one to be trusted by PW 1 and the appellant, to honour this kind of oral agreement unsupported by any document and to admit the alleged payment of money unsupported by any voucher. The Supreme Court further stated that whatever the truth of the matter might have been, it was difficult and profitless to speculate upon.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court stated that it was sufficient to say that on the evidence given it was not possible to find in favour of the appellant’s case and to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 in court auction under a clear and definite agreement for reconveyance of which she could now seek specific performance from the court. The Trial Judge in accepting the oral evidence for the appellant, without adequate scrutiny, had been unduly carried away by the alleged background of circumstances which, if at all, were of remote relevancy on the direct issue in this case. Thus, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions arrived at by the High Court and dismissed the appeal with costs.<\/p>\n

[Jagadambal Ammal v. Narayanaswami Ayyar, (1953) 2 SCC 257<\/a>, decided on 05-10-1953<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice B. Jagannadhadas<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

For the Appellant:<\/span> M. Natesan, Advocate;<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> K.S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Senior Advocate (T.R. Balakrishna Iyer, Advocate with him)<\/p>\n

*Note: Suit for Specific performance<\/p>\n

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in the law of contract, wherein if the contract is breached by one party, the other party has the option to file a suit for specific performance compelling him to perform his part of contract. Section 14<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a> provides the contracts, that are not specifically enforceable. As per the provision, the following contracts cannot be specifically enforced, namely:— (a) where a party to the contract has obtained substituted performance of contract in accordance with section 20<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963<\/a>; (b) a contract, the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty which the court cannot supervise; (c) a contract which is so dependent on the personal qualifications of the parties that the court cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms; and (d) a contract which is in its nature determinable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on suit for specific performance, dating back to the year 1953.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":329335,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,58675],"tags":[33522,72427,31854,58925,38169,32503,5363],"class_list":["post-329327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-scc-never-reported-judgments-supreme-court","tag-agreement-to-sell","tag-flimsy-oral-evidence","tag-immovable-property","tag-never-reported-judgment","tag-oral-evidence","tag-specific-performance","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on suit for specific performance | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.\" \/>\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\/2024\/08\/25\/when-sc-dismissed-specific-performance-suit-due-to-flimsy-oral-evidence-for-existence-of-agreement-to-sell-immovable-property\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"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]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"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\/\" \/>\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=\"2024-08-25T05:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-25T06:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-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=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"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]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 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\/2024\/08\/25\/when-sc-dismissed-specific-performance-suit-due-to-flimsy-oral-evidence-for-existence-of-agreement-to-sell-immovable-property\/\",\"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\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on suit for specific performance | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-08-25T05:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-25T06:30:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"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\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"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\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"suit for specific performance\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"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\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"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]\"}]},{\"@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\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on suit for specific performance | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.","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\/2024\/08\/25\/when-sc-dismissed-specific-performance-suit-due-to-flimsy-oral-evidence-for-existence-of-agreement-to-sell-immovable-property\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_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]","og_description":"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.","og_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\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-08-25T05:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-25T06:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_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]","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"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":"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\/","name":"Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment on suit for specific performance | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"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\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp","datePublished":"2024-08-25T05:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-25T06:30:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Supreme Court stated that it was not possible to hold that the suit property was purchased by the Respondent 1 under a definite agreement which appellant could seek specific performance.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"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\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["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\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"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\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"suit for specific performance"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"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\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"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]"}]},{"@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\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/suit-for-specific-performance.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":289603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/15\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-shall-be-admissible-in-evidence-in-suit-for-specific-performance-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":329327,"position":0},"title":"Unregistered agreement to sell an admissible evidence in a suit for specific performance; Supreme Court upholds Madras High Court Judgment","author":"Apoorva","date":"April 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unregistered agreement to sell as evidence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unregistered-agreement-to-sell-as-evidence.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294230,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/08\/recognition-of-poa-will-agreement-to-sell-as-title-documents-conferring-rights-in-immovable-property-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":329327,"position":1},"title":"Whether power of attorney, will, agreement to sell can be recognised as title documents conferring rights in any immovable property? Supreme Court answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"June 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"conferring rights in immovable property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/conferring-rights-in-immovable-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/conferring-rights-in-immovable-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/conferring-rights-in-immovable-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/conferring-rights-in-immovable-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348554,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/22\/unstamped-and-unregistered-but-still-permitted-as-proof-for-oral-agreement-of-sale-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":329327,"position":2},"title":"Unregistered document affecting immovable property can be an admissible evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance: Supreme Court","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, the Supreme Court had held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unregistered document","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/unregistered-document.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285594,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/27\/gurugram-court-dismisses-property-suit-based-on-forged-and-fabricated-documents-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":329327,"position":3},"title":"\u201cClaim based on oral agreement is outrightly unacceptable\u201d; Gurgaon District Court dismisses Property Suit","author":"Ridhi","date":"February 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While dealing with a suit for execution of sale deed of property filed in 2014, which was allegedly bought in 1992 through oral agreement, the Gurgaon District Court found the same based on forged and fabricated documents and refused to allow the claim.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"District Court, Gurgaon","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-552.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-552.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-552.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-552.png?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":329327,"position":4},"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":298714,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/06\/co-sharer-disposes-joint-property-and-appropriates-sale-proceeds-will-be-accountable-for-money-to-other-co-sharers-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":329327,"position":5},"title":"Never Reported Judgment | When a co-sharer in possession of a joint estate disposes of entire property and appropriates sale proceeds, he will be accountable for money to other co-sharers [1951 SCC 122]","author":"Simranjeet","date":"August 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"joint estate co-sharer immovable property","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/joint-estate-co-sharer-immovable-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/joint-estate-co-sharer-immovable-property.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/joint-estate-co-sharer-immovable-property.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/joint-estate-co-sharer-immovable-property.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329327","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\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=329327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/329327\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/329335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=329327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=329327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=329327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}