Specific performance must match the pleaded contract; a materially different agreement cannot be enforced without amending the plaint.

Specific performance requires the contract sought to be enforced to be specifically pleaded and clearly proved. The Court found no concluded contract on 25 January 1984 because negotiations were still continuing and the terms were not finally settled. It further held that the plaintiff could not rely on a separate alleged agreement of 28 April 1984 without amending the plaint, as relief must conform to the pleaded case. A materially different contract cannot be enforced through evidence inconsistent with the pleadings or under a general prayer. The decree for specific performance was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a concluded contract for sale was proved on 25 January 1984 at Delhi; (ii) whether the plaintiff could obtain specific performance on the basis of an alleged agreement of 28 April 1984 at Bangalore without amending the plaint; (iii) whether, in a suit for specific performance, relief can be granted on evidence inconsistent with the pleaded contract or under the general prayer.

Issue (i): Whether a concluded contract for sale was proved on 25 January 1984 at Delhi.

Analysis: The correspondence and the plaintiff's own notice showed that negotiations were still continuing and that the vendor had yet to consult his brothers. The consideration was not finally settled at the Delhi meeting, and the subsequent letters reinforced that the parties had not reached a completed bargain on the pleaded date.

Conclusion: No concluded contract on 25 January 1984 was proved; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff could obtain specific performance on the basis of an alleged agreement of 28 April 1984 at Bangalore without amending the plaint.

Analysis: The plaint proceeded on the footing that the concluded agreement was the one allegedly made on 25 January 1984. It did not plead a separate and independent contract of 28 April 1984, and the plaintiff declined the opportunity to amend the plaint in the High Court. In a suit for specific performance, relief must conform to the contract pleaded and proved, and a party cannot be allowed to abandon the pleaded case and seek enforcement of a different contract.

Conclusion: Relief on the alleged Bangalore agreement could not be granted on the plaint as framed; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether, in a suit for specific performance, relief can be granted on evidence inconsistent with the pleaded contract or under the general prayer.

Analysis: The governing principle under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, to be granted on sound judicial principles. The Court held that in such suits the contract must be clear, definite, and precisely pleaded and proved. Where the alleged contract differs materially from the contract set up in the plaint, and the pleading is not amended, general relief under Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to enforce a different bargain. The plaintiff had also not brought the case within any recognised exception such as part performance or immaterial variation.

Conclusion: The discretionary relief of specific performance could not be granted on the basis of the evidence or the general prayer; this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was not sustainable because the pleaded contract was not proved and the plaintiff could not be allowed to enforce a different alleged agreement without amendment of the plaint.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, the contract to be enforced must be specifically pleaded and clearly proved, and a court will not grant specific performance of a materially different contract on the basis of evidence or a general prayer where the plaint has not been amended.

---