Source: https://www.legalbites.in/remedies-specific-relief-act-1963/?share=twitter
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:35:05+00:00

Document:
In order to provide reliefs in cases relating to contracts, torts and other cases Specific Relief Act, 1877 was enacted. This legislation had become necessary because the Indian Contract Act,1872 provided only the relief of compensation in case of breach of contract. It was found that there might be situations wherein the grant of compensation would not afford adequate relief and only specific performance of the contract would render justice and provide adequate relief. It replaced an earlier Act of 1877. The Act of 1877 was drafted by Whitley Stokes and revised by the Law Member, Sir Arthur Hobhouse. The Act embodied equitable principles which were developed in England by equity courts and had been already applied by Indian courts as principles of justice and equity. The Report of the 9th Law Commission detailed the reasons for revising the Act of 1877 briefly. Numerous other flaws in the Act of 1877 were highlighted and thus, succeeded it with the Specific Relief Act of 1963.
The provisions contained in Chapter 1 are relating to both immovable and movable property. Section 5 and 6 deal with specific immovable property and sections 7 and 8 deal with movable property.
The two provisions are based on title and possession described under Section 5 and 6 respectively.
It states that a suit for possession must be filed having regard to the provisions of CPC. In Dadu v. Dayala Mahasabh, it was held that since the statute provides for applicability of the Code, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that all the provisions thereof shall apply.
This section provides for two principles. First, that the disputed rights ought to be decided in the due course of law and not otherwise. The second principle is that if a person is in possession of some property, then existing possession ought to be protected notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in the suit. The procedure for recovering possession of specific immovable property is the same a`s provided in Civil Procedure Code.
A person entitled to the possession of specific movable property may recover it in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
This section explains that a trustee may sue under this section for the possession of the movable property to the beneficial interest in which the person for whom he is a trustee is entitled.
In Chandu Naik and others v. Sitaram B. Naik and another, it was held that when the dispute is between two private parties in respect of possession of premises, the provisions of section 8 of the Act are not attracted and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit of the kind with which we are dealing.
Section 8 of the act attaches more importance to the title than possession.
The provisions relating to specific performance of contracts are contained in Chapter 2 of Part II of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Except as otherwise provided herein, where any relief is claimed under this Chapter in respect of a contract, the person against whom the relief is claimed may plead by way of defense any ground which is available to him under any law relating to contracts.
This section makes it clear that in a case relating to specific enforcement of the contract, the defendant can take all those defences which are available under any law relating to contracts.
In Sanjib v. Santosh (AIR 1922 Cal 436), it was held by this Court that on such an agreement a suit for specific performance could not be founded even though the tenant was put in possession in pursuance of the said agreement as the document was hit by Section 49.
According to the explanation of Section 10, unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall presume that in a breach of contract for the transfer of immovable property, compensation in money will not afford an adequate relief.
In Krishan v. Krishnan S/o Kizhakkum-brath Arumugha Tharakar (AIR 1993 Kerala 134), it was held where the agreement to sell the property was by three co-owners, the suit can be specifically enforced against one of the co-owners in respect of his share.
This section corresponds to Section 12(a) and 21(e) of the repealed Act of 1877.
(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of a contract.
(ii) in either case, relinquished all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant.
(4) When apart of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct specific performance of the former part.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, a party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable to perform the whole of his part of it if a portion of its subject matter existing at the date of the contract has ceased to exist at the time of its performance.
It states that the Court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of the contract unless it can enforce the contract.
It states that a contract can still be enforced even when the person has no or an imperfect title and he shall have the rights mentioned above.
(iii) the defendant has, in pursuance of the contract, obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed.
In Executive Committee, State Warehousing Corporation v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi, the Supreme Court held that ordinarily the contracts for personal services cannot be specifically enforced subject to certain exceptions.
A person, who sues for specific performance of an agreement, will have the burden of proving the same.
It was observed in N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R.J. Mohan Rao that where it is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff was not “ready and willing” to perform his part of the contract, he would not be entitled to get the decree of specific performance.
The act allows the Court to issue orders for rectification of documents executed in mutual mistake of the parties. The provision relating to rectification of instruments is contained is Section 26 of the Act. The rectification of the instrument can be made on the ground of mistake of law. According to clause 1, if on account of the mistake the instrument does not express the intention of the parties, then either party or his representative may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified.
Shanti Ranjan Das v. Dasuram (AIR 1957 Assam 49) – In the said decision it was held that even a representative in interest may apply for rectification. However, such rectification cannot affect the right of the third party.
The provisions relating to rescission of contracts are contained in Sections 27 to 30 of Chapter IV of Part II of the said Act.
In Prem Raj v. D.L.F.M Co. Ltd., it was held that a person who sues for rescission of contract cannot claim alternative relief of specific performance but a person who files the suit for specific enforcement can alternatively claim for rescission of the contract.
In Hari v. Naro, it was held that where the parties are equally at fault, the provisions of clause 1(b) will not apply.
The provisions relating to cancellation of instruments is given in Sections 31 to 33 of the said Act. Any person who has a reasonable apprehension that an instrument may cause him injury may sue to have it adjudged and the Court can order the cancellation on merit. The contract must be in writing and it must be void or voidable according to Section 31.
Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti v. Bhuvensawer Kumar Agarwal & Ors (2012), the issue is regarding the JDA’s jurisdiction to cancel a registered lease-deed contrary to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act (Section 31) and without as much as complying with the principle of natural justice. But the petition was dismissed.
Provisions relating to declaratory relief are given in Section 34 and 35.
The person filing the suit must be entitled to a legal right or any right as to any property. However, the passing of a declaratory decree is a matter of discretion of the court and it cannot be claimed a right.
Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual.
The injunction is a specific order of the Court whereby it prohibits a wrongful act or enacts in a wrongful course which has already commenced or cases it direct the things to be restored in their prior state.
An Injunction can be temporary or perpetual.
In Pirthi v. Mohan Singh, it was held that if the plaintiff abuses the process of Court and approaches Court with clean hands, the suit for the permanent injunction will be liable to be dismissed.
In a suit for mandatory injunction, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. It was held in Shankar Kumar v. Mohanlal Sharma, relief cannot be given on the ground that the defendant failed to prove his case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.