TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the agreement for sale was a concluded contract capable of specific performance, or only a conditional arrangement subject to ratification by the co-heirs; (ii) Whether specific performance should be refused in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether the agreement for sale was a concluded contract capable of specific performance, or only a conditional arrangement subject to ratification by the co-heirs.
Analysis: The agreement expressly stated that the conveyance was subject to ratification by the co-heirs. A stipulation of this nature was treated as a condition precedent to the coming into existence of a binding and enforceable contract. The surrounding correspondence and the draft sale deeds also showed that the contemplated sale was to be completed through the participation of the co-heirs, and not merely by the executor acting alone. Although an executor may generally have power to transfer estate property under the Indian Succession Act, that question became secondary once the Court found that no concluded contract had arisen.
Conclusion: The agreement was not a concluded and enforceable contract, and specific performance could not be granted on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether specific performance should be refused in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Court found that the conduct of the plaintiff, the circumstances in which the agreement was obtained, and the subsequent events made the grant of equitable relief inappropriate. Specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is discretionary, and the Court declined to exercise that discretion in favour of enforcement of the contract.
Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly refused in the exercise of discretion.
Final Conclusion: The agreement could not be specifically enforced and the refusal to decree specific performance was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an agreement for sale is expressly made subject to ratification by third parties whose assent is essential, no concluded contract arises until such ratification is obtained, and equitable relief of specific performance may also be declined where the overall circumstances make enforcement unjust.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
