Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Specific Relief Act, 1877

24 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

T.M. BALAKRISHNA MUDALIARversusM. SATY ANARA YANA RAO AND OTHERS

1993 INSC 13631 March 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar, purchased agricultural lands from Abdul Salam and Razia Begum and was assigned their right of repurchase under agreements dated 15‑April‑1963. The respondents, Satyanarayana Rao and his mother Pushpavathi Ammal, refused to execute reconveyance deeds, prompting Mudaliar to sue f

POONA RAMversusMOTI RAM (D) TH. LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 10129 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Poona Ram, sought to overturn a High Court judgment that had set aside a First Appellate Court order dismissing his suit for declaration of title and possession filed by Moti Ram. Moti Ram claimed possessory title based on alleged long possession but had no documentary title, while the defendants relied

M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS.versusMAHANT SURESH DAS AND OTHERS ETC.

2019 INSC 123127 September 2018Directions issued

The appeals arise from civil suits concerning title to the disputed Ayodhya structure and challenge the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. The petitioners sought to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench, arguing that the observations in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) –

M.S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR.versusJ. MANJULA

2025 INSC 27327 February 2025Dismissed

The case involved a dispute over a plot of land originally owned by Muniyappa, who executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an agreement to sell in favour of A. Saraswathi in 1986. After Muniyappa's death in 1997, Saraswathi, as GPA holder, executed a registered sale deed in 1998 transferring the property to her

BAL KRISHNA AND ANR.versusBHAGWAN DAS (DEAD) AND ORS .

2008 INSC 39825 March 2008Dismissed

Bal Krishna and another filed a suit for specific performance of a reconveyance agreement concerning a house that had been sold in 1952. The plaintiffs claimed they were ready and willing to pay the consideration and sought a deed of reconveyance, while the defendant (deceased) denied the existence of the reconveyance

SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY AND ANOTHERversusRAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL

2010 INSC 42223 July 2010Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal filed by tenants challenging a Bombay High Court order that dismissed their writ petition under Article 226. The petition sought a writ of certiorari against the landlord’s eviction suit, a pure civil dispute between private parties. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is a remedy

CHANDA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusRATTNI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 33723 March 2007Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase land, paid earnest money and was required to pay the balance consideration and obtain execution of the sale deed within two months of the decree for specific performance. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the defendants to execute the deed upon p

ANTHONYversusKC ITTOOP AND SONS AND ORS.

2000 INSC 34821 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Anthony was inducted into possession of a shed by the owner under an unregistered lease deed for five years and paid monthly rent. The ownership later passed to the respondents who sued for eviction; the trial court dismissed the tenancy claim and decreed eviction. On first appeal, the district court held that despite

M/S. SMS TEA ESTATES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. CHANDMARI TEA CO. PVT. LTD.

2011 INSC 50820 July 2011

The appellant, SMS Tea Estates, entered into a 30‑year lease deed with the respondent, Chandmari Tea Co., which contained Clause 35 mandating arbitration of disputes. The lease deed was not registered, though registration was compulsory, and it was also not duly stamped. The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrato

SHYAM SINGHversusDARYAO SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 64919 November 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a 1971 agreement of repurchase of land against Daryao Singh (deceased) and other respondents. The trial court and appellate courts dismissed the suit, holding that the right of repurchase was a personal right of the original sellers (defendants 2‑4) and could not be

VERIGAMTO NAVEENversusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2001 INSC 44718 September 2001Case Partly allowed

The State of Andhra Pradesh had granted mining leases to its corporation and, with its permission, sub‑leases to private parties. The State later withdrew permission for the sub‑leases, leading the sub‑lessees to file writ petitions alleging illegal cancellation and seeking compensation. The High Court held the sub‑lea

VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 13511 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd., the lessor of a lease that expired on 24 June 1984, served a notice to the lessee demanding vacant possession and filed a suit for eviction on 16 April 1984, twelve weeks before the lease term ended. The defendant argued that the suit was premature and not maintainable. The High Court Single Judge

R. HEMALATHAversusKASHTHURI

2023 INSC 33610 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant (original defendant) challenged the High Court's order that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, executed on 10‑09‑2013, could be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The dispute centered on whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, which made agreements to sell immovable property of R

VENKATARAJA & ORS.versusVIDYANE DOURERADJAPERUMAL (D) THR.LRS. & ORS.

2013 INSC 23610 April 2013Dismissed

The appellants sought a declaration of title to a property in Pondicherry, alleging that a prior sale by a Hindu widow who held only a life estate was void. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of a claim for possession, a decision upheld by the High Court, which also held that the widow had acquired absolute ti

M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRSversusV. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

2019 INSC 12319 November 2019Disposed off

The instant appeals arose from five suits between 1950 and 1989 over a 1500 sq yard land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) and by Muslims as the site of the Babri Masjid. The Allahabad High Court had directed a three-way partition of the disputed site, which the Supreme Court

NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MIHONA AND ANR.versusMADHYA PRADESH MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1961

2014 INSC 2639 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona issued notices under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 to Ramnath for encroaching on a public road. Ramnath filed a suit seeking declaration of title over the land and a permanent injunction, claiming ancestral ownership. The trial court and two appellate courts held the suit

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR.versusBUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

2015 INSC 7558 October 2015Case Partly allowed

In a partition suit, the defendants sought to introduce two unregistered documents (Exhibit B‑21, a deed of memorandum, and Exhibit B‑22, an agreement) to prove the division of property. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the documents inadmissible, reasoning that they were compulsorily registerable

HAMDA AMMALversusAVADIAPPA PATHAR AND 3 OTHERS

1990 INSC 3417 November 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a suit‑property from the vendors by a sale deed executed on 9 September 1970 and registered it on 26 October 1970. Before the registration, the respondent filed a money suit on 13 September 1970 and obtained attachment before judgment of the property on 17 September 1970, later obtaining a decre

SOM DEV AND ORS.versusRATI RAM AND ANR.

2006 INSC 5846 September 2006Dismissed

The plaintiff, Som Dev, claimed a right of pre-emption over a half‑share of immovable property, relying on a decree dated 10‑10‑1980 that recognised a family settlement whereby co‑owner Sheo Ram had relinquished his share in favour of the plaintiff and his brother. The defendants argued that the decree created a new ri

HABIBA KHATOONversusUBAIDUL HUQ AND ORS.

1997 INSC 5955 August 1997Dismissed

The case concerned a house sold by Smt. Amir Jehan Begam to Shakir Ahmad Khan, who executed an Agreement of Reconveyance granting the vendor a right to repurchase the property within three years. Shakir transferred his interest to the appellant, while the vendor’s son, Irfan Hasan Khan, later assigned his repurchase ri

INDIRA DEVIversusVEENA GUPTA & ORS.

2023 INSC 5934 July 2023Dismissed

The case concerned a conditional sale deed executed in 1977 by Kishori Lal Sahu and his son in favour of Indira Devi, which contained a right of repurchase if the vendors returned the consideration by July 1984. Kishori Lal later executed a gift deed in 1983 transferring his property to his daughter‑in‑law Veena Gupta

AMEER MINHAJversusDIERDRE ELIZABETH (WRIGHT) ISSAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5784 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 2003 agreement to sell land, relying on an unregistered sale deed, a registered power of attorney, and an earlier unregistered 1995 agreement. The respondents challenged the admissibility of these documents, arguing that the 2003 deed required registration under

KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR.versusKORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR

2021 INSC 5861 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a partition of family property where the respondent sought a declaration of title and eviction of the appellants. The appellants relied on a family settlement document (Khararunama) dated 15‑04‑1986 and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000 as evidence of the parties' past arrangements. The trial court admitt

RAM DAAN (D) THROUGH LRS.versusURBAN DEVELOPMENT TRUST

2014 INSC 9891 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Daan filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Urban Development Trust from dispossessing him of a 4,914‑sq‑yard plot, claiming uninterrupted possession since 1942. The respondent asserted that the land belonged to the State of Rajasthan and that the appellant had been evicted in 1965 under Section 91

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search