Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 16 , Section 20

Specific Performance - Plaintiff has to aver and prove with satisfactory evidence that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract at all material time as mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Act, 1963 - The time for performance of contract was extended again and again totaling period of eight years - Even though first appellate court and High Court recorded findings that respondents-plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract - Considering the circumstances, such as the construction of the residential house over the suit property, sale consideration, passage of time and hardship caused to the appellant, makes it inequitable to exercise the discretionary relief of specific performance and the concurrent finding of first appellate court and the High Court decreeing the suit for specific performance liable to be set aside - Respondents have paid advance amount of Rs.42,500/- - Even though, the respondents are not entitled to the relief of specific performance the advance amount of Rs.42,500/- paid by the respondents is to be refunded to the respondents with interest at the rate of 9% per annum - In addition, the appellant is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963  - Section 20 , The Indian Evidence Act,1872  - Section 92 , Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 136

Courts have recorded concurrent findings rejecting the stand of the appellant that the actual sale price was rupees three lakhs and for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges, lesser amount was written - Held that this is well in accordance with Section 92 of the Evidence Act - Do not find any reason warranting interference in the said concurrent findings of the courts below.

Topic(s)-

Important Decision(s)- 

• Rejecting the stand of the appellant that the actual sale price was rupees three lakhs and for the purpose of stamp duty and registration charges, lesser amount was written.
• The construction of the residential house and hardship - The respondents are not entitled to the relief of specific performance.