TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies specific performance, awards damages instead. Plaintiff to receive Rs. 1,600 + interest. Appeal dismissed.</h1> The court upheld the lower court's decision to grant damages instead of specific performance. The plaintiff was found to have agreed to accept damages, ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the plaintiff agreed to accept damages instead of specific performance of the contract.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim specific performance of the contract given the circumstances set up in the defendant's written statement.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, and if so, the amount of such damages.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Agreement to Accept Damages Instead of Specific Performance:The court examined whether the plaintiff had agreed to accept damages in lieu of specific performance. The defendant had written a letter on 3rd May 1943, requesting the plaintiff to relieve him from the performance of the contract and accept compensation instead. The plaintiff's reaction to this letter was not directly evidenced, but it was admitted that the plaintiff wrote to his son in Allahabad, who then replied to the defendant. The lower court found that the plaintiff was willing to accept damages and had dispensed with the performance of the contract. This conclusion was supported by the suppression of the plaintiff's letter to his son, suggesting the plaintiff was willing to accept damages, but the son demanded a higher amount. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had agreed to accept damages.2. Entitlement to Specific Performance:The court discussed whether damages were an adequate relief and whether specific performance should be granted. The Specific Relief Act presumes that damages are not sufficient compensation for the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property unless proven otherwise. The court noted that the plaintiff, at one stage, considered Rs. 4,000 as adequate compensation, indicating that damages were sufficient. The court referred to Section 21(a) of the Specific Relief Act, which bars specific performance when damages are adequate. The court concluded that the lower court was justified in granting damages instead of specific performance, as the plaintiff himself had considered damages adequate.3. Recovery of Damages and Amount:The lower court had assessed the damages at Rs. 1,600 and dismissed the suit for specific performance. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he should receive pendente lite and future interest on the awarded damages. The court agreed with the plaintiff, directing that he should receive interest at the rate of 3 1/4 percent on the sum of Rs. 1,600 from the date of the suit to the date of payment. The court dismissed the appeal with this modification, directing that each party bear their own costs.Additional Considerations:The court addressed other arguments, including the admissibility of a letter marked 'without prejudice' and the relevance of sentimental attachment and hardship to the defendant. The court found that the letter's contents could be inferred from the testimony and that sentimental considerations were not relevant in deciding specific performance. The court emphasized that discretion must be exercised according to settled principles and that specific performance is a matter of right if the contract is unobjectionable.Conclusion:The court upheld the lower court's decision to grant damages instead of specific performance, with a modification to include pendente lite and future interest on the awarded damages. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
