Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether specific performance of the agreement for sale should be refused on the ground that the original purchaser had waived his rights and the assignee could not claim a better right; and whether, in the facts of the case, discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 should be exercised against granting specific performance.
Analysis: The surrounding transactions showed that the subsequent lease and agreement were executed with the knowledge of the original agreement and as part of an arrangement to close that transaction. The pleadings and conduct of the parties indicated that the original purchaser had accepted the later arrangement and thereby waived his right to enforce the earlier agreement for his own benefit. Since the assignee stood only in the shoes of the assignor, he could not acquire a better right than the right that had already been waived. In exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court was required to consider the fairness of granting the equitable relief and the motive behind the suit.
Conclusion: Specific performance was rightly refused, and the assignee was not entitled to enforce the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the conduct of the original promisee shows waiver of the contractual right, an assignee cannot enforce specific performance of that agreement, and equitable relief may be refused in the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.