Specific performance of severable contract parts and fixed machinery may be enforced where damages are inadequate

Specific performance may be granted for a separable and definite part of a contract when the plaintiff relinquishes the excluded portion and the remaining subject matter is ascertainable. The commentary applies this principle to a land agreement, treating the enforceable share as severable from the portion not proved or not available for relief. It also explains that fixed machinery attached to land may be treated as immovable for specific relief purposes, or otherwise may still be specifically enforceable where it is not an ordinary market item and damages would not provide adequate compensation. The discussion further notes that partnership objections did not defeat enforcement on the stated facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether specific performance could be granted for the separable part of the agreement relating to 29 2/3 marlas of land under the rule permitting enforcement of part of a contract; and (ii) whether the agreement relating to the ice factory machinery could be specifically enforced, including the question whether the machinery was immovable property and whether the defendant could validly agree to transfer his share in it.

Issue (i): Whether specific performance could be granted for the separable part of the agreement relating to 29 2/3 marlas of land under the rule permitting enforcement of part of a contract.

Analysis: The burden to prove that the property was joint Hindu family property lay on the defendant, and the evidence did not establish that the later-acquired land was purchased from the income of any joint family nucleus. The portion of the agreement relating to 11 marlas and the building was found to be separable from the remaining land, with different sale deeds and distinct khasra numbers. The Court applied the principle that, where the unenforceable part can be separated and the plaintiff relinquishes claim to that part, specific performance may be decreed for the enforceable part of the contract.

Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly granted for the defendant's share in 29 2/3 marlas of land, and the plaintiff was entitled to enforcement of that part of the agreement.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement relating to the ice factory machinery could be specifically enforced, including the question whether the machinery was immovable property and whether the defendant could validly agree to transfer his share in it.

Analysis: Machinery fixed and installed on the land was treated as attached to the earth and therefore not an ordinary movable article for the purpose of specific relief. Even if treated as movable property, the Court held that such machinery was not an ordinary article of commerce and could fall within the exception where compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. The Court also held that the defendant's reliance on partnership principles did not defeat enforceability on the facts, since the agreement was to transfer his share and the cited rule against dealing with partnership property during subsistence of the firm was inapplicable in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The agreement relating to 1/8 share in the machinery was specifically enforceable, and the plaintiff was entitled to enforcement of that part of the agreement.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was set aside in part, and the plaintiff obtained decree for specific performance of the separable land share and the machinery share, while relief remained refused only for the joint-family portion of the land and building.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a contract contains a separable unenforceable part, specific performance may be decreed for the remaining definite and ascertainable part if the plaintiff relinquishes the excluded portion; and fixed machinery attached to land, or machinery of special value not ordinarily obtainable in the market, may be specifically enforceable where damages are not an adequate relief.

---