Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Specific Relief Act, 1963

431 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–400.

BABU KHAN AND ORS.versusNAZIM KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 20916 April 2001Case Allowed

The appellants, pucca tenants, filed an application under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 seeking reinstatement after being dispossessed, but the revenue authorities dismissed their claim. They subsequently filed a civil suit for declaration of title and possession, which the trial co

SRI SAMIR SOBHAN SANYALversusTRACKS TRADE PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 53416 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. S. Sanyal, was occupying premises as a tenant of India Foils Ltd. when the landlady sold the property to Habitat Developers, who obtained a decree for specific performance and possession. Although the decree was against the landlady, the appellant was not impleaded nor was any eviction order passed ag

HARDEEP KAURversusMALKIAT KAUR

2012 INSC 13616 March 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved a suit for specific performance of a land sale agreement where the trial court decreed specific performance, the District Judge reversed the decree and ordered a refund of earnest money, and the High Court allowed a second appeal, set aside the District Judge’s order and restored the trial court de

HARDESH ORES PVT. LTD.versusTIMBLO MINERALS PVT. LTD.,AND ORS.

2004 INSC 17516 March 2004Case Partly allowed

The dispute concerned the exclusive right to operate an iron‑ore mine. Hardesh Ores (the old contractor) claimed that its contract with the mining‑lease owner had been renewed by the parties' conduct, while Timbolo Minerals (the new contractors) asserted that the owner had refused renewal and entered into a fresh, high

BABULALversusRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 27416 February 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Babulal obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, but the decree did not grant possession. When the decree‑holder sought to execute the decree, Raj Kumar (the appellant), who was not a party to the decree, claimed a right in the property and obtained an injunction. He obje

J. SAMUEL AND OTHERSversusGATTU MAHESH AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 3116 January 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a sale contract, but their plaint omitted the mandatory averment under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act that they were ready and willing to perform. After the trial concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, they sought to amend the plaint under

OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSIONversusWESTERN COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

1987 INSC 1416 January 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) entered into a drilling contract with Western Company of North America that provided for arbitration under the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and the law of India, with hearings to be held in London. An umpire, after the arbitrators could not agree, issued an interim award and a fi

SUSHMA SHIVKUMAR DAGA & ANR.versusMADHURKUMAR RAMKRISHNAJI BAJAJ & ORS

2023 INSC 108115 December 2023Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of the late Shivkumar Daga, filed a civil suit seeking declaration that a conveyance deed of 17‑12‑2019 and several development agreements were void. The respondents moved a Section 8 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on arbitration clauses in two earlier Tripar

HARPAL SINGHversusASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

2017 INSC 124615 December 2017Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for possession of land under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which was decreed ex‑parte. During execution, the appellant objected that the suit was barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act because the land was agricultural. The executing court held that the land had been bu

LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS.versusS. P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS.

2016 INSC 114715 December 2016Remitted to Lower Court

The plaintiff Shailendra Prasad Srivastava filed a suit for declaration of title over certain lands against Baidya Nath Prasad Verma, which the trial court dismissed. The High Court, acting as the first appellate court, reversed the trial court's decision and decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but it neither framed sp

SMT. THAKAMMA MATHEWversusM. AZAMATHULLA KHAN AND ORS.

[1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 54415 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

Smt. Thakamma Mathew sold a property to M. Azmathulla Khan and later cancelled the agreement when the sale was not completed by the stipulated date. She sued for cancellation, possession and damages. The trial court cancelled the agreement and ordered restitution and damages. The Karnataka High Court, invoking Order 7

MRS. SANJANA M. WIGversusHINDUSTAN PETRO CORPORATION LTD.

2005 INSC 41815 September 2005Dismissed

The appellant, a partnership firm dealing in automobiles, entered into a dealership agreement with Hindustan Petro Corporation which was later terminated on the death of a partner and subsequently on grounds of payment defaults. The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking restorati

P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.

2024 INSC 53315 July 2024Case Allowed

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell a Bangalore property in 1981, paying an advance but failing to execute the sale deed within the stipulated three‑month period, citing a government restriction on registration. The defendants sent multiple notices demanding payment of the balance and eventually forfeited

GANESH SHETversusDR. C.S.G.K. SETTY AND ORS.

1998 INSC 24415 May 1998Dismissed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement of a Shimoga property, claiming the contract was concluded on 25‑January‑1984 in Delhi. The defendants denied any concluded contract, stating that price and terms were never fixed and that no agreement was reached on the later meeting in B

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON INC.versusSBI HOME FINANCE LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 30115 April 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Booz‑Allen & Hamilton Inc., sought to refer a mortgage suit filed by SBI Home Finance Ltd. to arbitration under clause 16 of a tripartite deposit agreement. The High Court rejected the application, holding that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration clause, that the appellant had waived its right

OM PRAKASH SINGHversusM. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.

2009 INSC 51815 April 2009Dismissed

Om Prakash Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, claimed that a 16‑acre parcel of land in Andhra Pradesh was joint family property and that the Karta, Ram Katin Singh, died in 1978. He alleged that the respondents fabricated three sale deeds in 1980‑81 by forging Singh’s signature and thereby illegally obtained possessio

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusAHSANUL GHANI

2019 INSC 20415 February 2019Dismissed

Mehboob-ur-Rehman filed a suit for specific performance of a 1975 agreement to sell a house, alleging the defendant failed to obtain required land‑ceiling permission. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the first appellate court reversed, holding the plaintiff had not shown continuous readiness and willingness t

SARDAR MOHAR SINGH THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANJIT SINGHversusMANGILAL @ MANGTYA

1997 INSC 3115 January 1997Dismissed

The petitioner entered into a contract to sell agricultural land to the respondent, who defaulted, leading to a decree for specific performance directing the respondent to pay earnest money and damages within three months. After a delay of about seven and a half years, the respondent applied to rescind the decree and s

DESH RAJ & ORS.versusROHTASH SINGH

2022 INSC 127914 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, joint owners of a 23‑kanal property, entered into two sale agreements with the respondent, requiring the sale deed to be executed by 16‑08‑2004 and making earnest money forfeitable if the deadline was missed. The respondent paid part of the consideration as earnest money but failed to appear for executi

VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERSversusDURGA TRADING CORPORATION

2020 INSC 69714 December 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court of India addressed two interconnected issues: whether landlord-tenant disputes governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 are arbitrable, and the scope of judicial review under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case arose from a tenancy agreement containing an ar

ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.versusR.K. SHARMA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 61014 December 2001Dismissed

The Ashok Nagar Welfare Association filed suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of land allegedly occupied unlawfully by the respondents. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed ex‑parte decrees on the basis that summons were served, although the summons were later found not to have

ESTATE OFFICER, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusNIRMALA DEVI

2025 INSC 84314 July 2025

The case concerned the allotment of residential and commercial plots to land owners (oustees) whose land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1992 for a residential development project. The oustees filed suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act seeking mandatory injunctions to comp

ARJAN SINGHversusPUNIT AHLUWALIA & ORS.

2008 INSC 66814 May 2008Case Partly allowed

Arjan Singh filed a suit for specific performance of a contract concerning a Chandigarh property and obtained an interim injunction that was extended up to 16 October 1996. A second suit was filed by Sanjeev Sharma against the same owner, Dr. Bawa, and the parties entered into a compromise on 19 February 2003, resultin

LAL DEVI AND ANR.versusVANEETA JAIN AND ORS

2007 INSC 57214 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a Shimla property after the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. During the trial, the vendor's counsel was absent because they were engaged in a High Court matter, and no representation of their absence was made to the District Judge. After

VICTORY IRON WORKS LTD.versusJITENDRA LOHIA & ANR

2023 INSC 23014 March 2023Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a dispute arising out of a corporate insolvency resolution process involving Avani Towers (the corporate debtor), Energy Properties (the ostensible owner of a 10.19‑acre land), and Victory Iron Works (a licensee of a 10,000 sq ft portion). The corporate debtor had financed the purchase of t

GURDIAL KAUR (D) THROUGH LRS.versusPIARA SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.

2008 INSC 37514 March 2008Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff entered into a 1964 agreement of sale with the vendor, paid half the price and sought specific performance after the vendor failed to appear for registration and later died. Subsequent consolidation altered the revenue survey (Khasra/Khewat) numbers of the land, leading the trial court to deny specific pe

M/S MEGHRAJ BISCUITS INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, U.P.

2007 INSC 28614 March 2007Dismissed

Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. manufactured biscuits and sold them under the brand name “Meghraj” from 1991. The brand name was a registered trademark of Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd., which also used it for biscuits. The Central Excise Department held that the appellant was not eligible for the Small Scale Industry (SSI

M/S B N PADMANABHAIAH AND SONSversusR N NADIGAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 21414 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, B N Padmanabhaiah and Sons, had obtained a permanent injunction against the State of Karnataka in O.S. No.80 of 1978 concerning a parcel of land, and the decree became final after being upheld by appellate courts. Later, former students of a government school and other citizens filed a representative sui

M.V. SHANKAR BHAI AND ANR.versusCLAUDE PINTO (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 9114 February 2003Dismissed

The testator Claude Pinto executed a will appointing his son as executor to sell a property and distribute the proceeds, while also allowing the legatees to seek partition. The executor entered into a sale agreement with the tenant, M.V. Shankar Bhoi, which contained a clause that the sale was "subject to ratification

THE GENERAL MANAGER, PENCH AREA, PARASIA, M.P.versusBARKAN@ KANHAIYA

2007 INSC 129113 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of employment, alleging that the employer had failed to appoint his son despite a clause promising employment for four persons. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court held the suit maintainable and ordered specific performance. On appeal

MEERA CHAUHANversusHARSH BISHNOI AND ANR.

2006 INSC 100513 December 2006Case Partly allowed

The suit property was bequeathed to respondent No.2 by a will, but respondent No.1 filed a suit claiming title based on an oral family settlement and obtained an ex‑parte injunction restraining respondent No.2 from transferring the property. While the injunction was in force, the appellant purchased the property from r

GAJANAN JAIKISHAN JOSHIversusPRABHAKAR MOHANLAL KALWAR

1989 INSC 38313 December 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant had paid part consideration for a property and was given possession, but the respondent failed to execute the registered sale deed as agreed. The appellant sued for specific performance, but the plaint omitted an averment that he was ready and willing to perform his part, which is required under Section 1

RAMAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusR. NATARAJAN

2022 INSC 95413 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a 1993 agreement of sale of land, which was conditioned on the defendant first entering into an agreement with his brother's wife to purchase a parcel of her land for access. The trial court granted specific performance, the first appellate court reversed, and the

M/S. SHIVALI ENTERPRISESversusSMT. GODAWARI (DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS

2022 INSC 95213 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/S. Shivali Enterprises entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondents, receiving Rs.1,50,000 of the Rs.1,65,000 purchase price and taking possession, while the respondents were required to obtain an Income‑Tax Clearance certificate and have the revenue records mutated before execution of the sale deed. The

NOBLE RESOURCES LTD.versusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR

2006 INSC 60713 September 2006

Noble Resources Ltd. entered into a contract with the Orissa state-owned corporation OMC Ltd. to supply specified quantities of iron‑ore fines of grades A, B and C at agreed prices. OMC later refused to supply the remaining C‑grade quantity, citing a sharp rise in international prices and cancelled the tender, promptin

SURJIT KAURversusNAURATA SINGH AND ANR.

2000 INSC 44413 September 2000Disposed off

Surjit Kaur entered into an agreement to sell her land to Naurata Singh, receiving Rs 20,000 as advance, with the condition that mutation and possession be delivered before execution of the sale deed by 30 June 1981. A suit filed by a third party obtained an interim injunction restraining alienation, preventing the app

MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP & ORS.versusSMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR & ORS.

2019 INSC 89213 August 2019Case Partly allowed

The plaintiffs entered into agreements dated 20‑09‑1965 and 28‑04‑1966 for the sale of 50 acres of agricultural land, paying part of the consideration and taking partial possession. The defendants contended that the documents were merely collateral security for a loan. The Supreme Court held that the agreements were un

HPA INTERNATIONALversusBHAGWANDAS FATEH CHAND DASWANI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 39513 July 2004Dismissed

The vendor, a life tenant of a property, entered into a sale agreement with HPA International to sell his life interest and the reversionary interest of the remaindermen, subject to obtaining a High Court sanction. The sanction suit was opposed by the reversioners and, after two years of delay, the vendor served a noti

UMABAI AND ANR.versusNILKANTH DHONDIBA CHAVAN BY LRS. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 20313 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a transaction where the respondents sold a property to the appellants for Rs 45,000 and, on the same day, entered into an agreement for reconveyance of the same property upon payment of the same amount within seven to nine years. The respondents claimed the arrangement was a mortgage and that the deb

MANJUNATH ANANDAPPA URF. SHIVAPPA HANASIversusTAMMANASA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 17713 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale on 1 Oct 1978 with the owner of a suit property, paying Rs 20,000 of the Rs 30,000 price and agreeing to pay the balance and obtain a registered deed within three years. The owner later sold the property to the appellant on 15 May 1984. The plaintiff served a notice on 8 

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITEDversusHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 20713 February 2025Disposed off

M/s Tomorrowland Limited, the highest bidder for a 5‑star hotel site, paid the first instalment but argued that HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) was obliged to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub‑lease before demanding further payments. HUDCO failed to secure the necessary approvals and a perp

VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR.versusRAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRS.

2024 INSC 10913 February 2024Appeal(s) allowed

In 1947 a mother, Thayammal, executed a First Settlement Deed granting interests in her property to her two sons and her daughter. Subsequent deeds in 1952 and later altered those interests, ultimately leaving the daughter’s husband, Gopalakrishnan, claiming a vested right as heir of the daughter under the First Settle

C. HARIDASANversusANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS

2023 INSC 3713 January 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The appellant, C. Haridasan, entered into an agreement to sell Kanam and Kuzhikoor rights in 2005, paid a nominal advance and was to pay the balance within six months after the defendants provided title documents. The defendants failed to provide the documents, the plaintiff delayed serving a legal notice until Novembe

SUSHIL KUMAR & ANR.versusRAM PRAKASH & ORS.

1988 INSC 913 January 1988Dismissed

Ram Prakash, the Karta of a Mitakshara joint Hindu family, executed an agreement to sell a house described as self‑acquired to Jai Bhagwan but later refused to execute the sale deed. Jai Bhagwan sued for specific performance; the sons of Ram Prakash, claiming the house to be coparcenary property, were denied impleadmen

MOHAN LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS. KACHRU AND ORS.versusMIRZA ABDUL GAFFAR AND ANR.

1995 INSC 88612 December 1995Dismissed

The appellant obtained possession of the suit lands in 1956 under a sale agreement, having paid only part of the consideration and later filed a suit for specific performance which was dismissed. The respondent purchased the lands in 1960 and sued for possession, obtaining a decree in the trial court that was reversed

SHYAM KUMAR INANIversusVINOD AGRAWAL & ORS.

2024 INSC 86512 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased 23.98 acres of agricultural land from Sushila Devi under an Agreement to Sell dated 30‑08‑1990, paid full consideration and took possession, but the legal heirs refused to execute a sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, but the High Court reversed, holding the agreement void

EMBASSY HOTELS PVT.LTD.versusMIS. GAJARAJ & CO. & ORS.

2014 INSC 102612 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Embassy Hotels Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit for specific performance of a 1978 agreement for sale of land that had been mortgaged by the vendor, M/s. Gajaraj & Co., to Srinivasa Perumal Financing Corporation. The mortgaged land was sold by court auction to the appellant, who obtained a sale certificate that was confirmed by

P. DAIVASIGAMANIversusS. SAMBANDAN

2022 INSC 107012 October 2022Dismissed

The appellant, who owned a one‑acre wetland, entered into a 1989 agreement to sell the land to the respondent for Rs 6,50,000, with a six‑month completion clause. The respondent repeatedly notified the appellant to perform, demonstrated his readiness and willingness, and filed a suit for specific performance in 1993. T

FERRODOUS ESTATES (PVT.) LTD.versusP. GOPIRATHNAM (DEAD) & ORS.

2020 INSC 58612 October 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Ferro... Ltd. entered into a 1980 agreement to sell land to the defendants, which required the vendor to obtain permission under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978. The defendants failed to secure the permission, prompting the appellant to sue for specific performance. The High Court initially g

RAJUL MANOJ SHAH ALIAS RAJESHWARI RASIKLAL SHETHversusKIRANBHAI SHAKRABHAI PATEL & ANR.

2025 INSC 110912 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 2012 seeking a declaration that her sister‑in‑law could not sell a jointly owned bungalow and that an agreement to sell dated 21‑10‑2011 was void. After the sister‑in‑law died, the court substituted a Nazir as defendant No.1. In 2021 the respondent (defendant No.2) applied to amend his wri

ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.versusDAULAT AND ANR.

2001 INSC 43912 September 2001Dismissed

The appellant, a seller of a land‑and‑building, executed an agreement and memorandum to sell the property to the respondents. The respondents filed a suit under clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration of the agreement’s validity and specific performance of the sale, without expres

U.N. KRISHNAMURTHY (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS.versusA. M. KRISHNAMURTHY

2022 INSC 71412 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement where the plaintiff had paid a small advance and was required to pay the balance by a stipulated date. The Supreme Court held that under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness,

N.P. THIRUGNANAM (D) BY L.RS.versusDR. R. JAGAN MOHAN RAO AND ORS.

1995 INSC 39412 July 1995Dismissed

The plaintiff N.P. Thirugnanam had entered into a sale agreement for a property and paid a small advance, thereafter taking possession as a tenant. He sued for specific performance, alleging the defendants had refused to execute the sale deed, while the defendants contended that the plaintiff had not paid the further a

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusVENKATESWARLU KARI AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 56212 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned PTC India Financial Services Ltd (PIFSL) who, after a corporate debtor defaulted, invoked a pledge over 31,80,678 dematerialised shares of NEVPL under a pledge deed and sought to enforce its rights under the Contract Act, 1872. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had held that the pledge cr

PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALAversusMANGAL SINGH AND ORS.

2011 INSC 38712 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether employees of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation could claim pension benefits under a scheme introduced in 1992 despite not exercising the option to join the scheme or refunding advances taken from the employer's C.P.F. contribution as required by the Corporation's Regulations. The C

DADU DAYALU MAHASABHA, JAIPUR (TRUST)versusMAHANT RAM NIWAS AND ANOTHER

2008 INSC 63512 May 2008Disposed off

The Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, a registered public trust, and Mahant Ram Niwas were involved in a long series of suits concerning the entitlement and management of a religious Gaddi. The Supreme Court, in the first round of litigation, held that the respondent was not entitled to the Gaddi and granted him liberty to file a

S. KALADEVIversusV.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS.

2010 INSC 20512 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Kaladevi, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for an immovable property, seeking execution of a fresh sale deed and an injunction. The sale deed dated 27‑02‑2006 had been executed but could not be registered because of an attachment on the property, and the trial court refused to

JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDYversusVERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR & ANR

2013 INSC 15612 March 2013Dismissed

The appellant, Joseph John Peter Sandy, sought a decree of rectification of a 1981 settlement deed that had transferred a house to his sister, Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, alleging a mistake and that the parties intended to exchange the properties. The sister contested, claiming the alleged agreement of 1 June 1982 was fo

ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS

2024 INSC 3612 January 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction over a property, alleging an oral gift, while the defendants contested the suit's maintainability under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court, ignoring the written statement of one defendant and the pending jurisdictional objecti

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION --I & ANR.versusBAL MUKUND BAIRWA

2009 INSC 1412 January 2009Reference answered

The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (a State corporation) terminated several employees and the employees filed civil suits alleging violation of natural‑justice principles and statutory regulations. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve a conflict between earlier judgments on whether civil courts have juris

SURINDER KAUR (D) THR. LR. JASINDERJIT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusBAHADUR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

2019 INSC 101611 September 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Mohinder Kaur, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants, agreed to sell agricultural land to Bahadur Singh, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, for Rs.5,605 with Rs.1,000 paid as earnest money. Possession was handed over to the buyer, and the agreement stipulated that if the pending litigation on the title was

SUDHIR JAGGI AND ANR.versusSUNIL AKASH SINHA CHOUDHURY AND ORS.

2004 INSC 43911 August 2004Dismissed

The plaintiff, the executors of P.K. Chowdhury, purchased two flats from the developer and, after a variation of the agreement, was handed possession of the incomplete flats in May 1967, with the keys and authority to construct permanent partitions, doors and windows at his own cost. The plaintiff paid the majority of

SYED DASTAGIRversusT.R. GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY

1999 INSC 31711 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Syed Dastagir entered into a sale agreement with T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty for Rs.9,500, paying most of the consideration but the defendant refused to accept the remaining Rs.120 and execute the sale deed. The plaintiff deposited the balance in court and sued for specific performance. The trial court and the appellate c

R.V. BHUPAL PRASADversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

1995 INSC 45511 August 1995Dismissed

The appellant, R.V. Bhupal Prasad, held a cinema theatre under a 20‑year lease that expired in 1983. He applied for renewal of his cinema licence under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1970, but the landlady (Respondent No.3) objected, claiming his possession was not lawful. The licensing authority and a

MOHAMED ALIversusV. JAYA & ORS.

2022 INSC 69611 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Mohamed Ali sued for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court passed an ex‑parte judgment and decree in 2012. The defendants filed applications to set aside the decree after delays of 1,522 days (defendant 1) and 2,345 days (defendants 2‑4); the trial court refused to condone these delays. The defendan

GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD AND ORSversusBRAHMA NAND SINGH

2008 INSC 81211 July 2008Dismissed

The appellants, Gauri Shankar Prasad and others, needed money and mortgaged their land to the respondent, Brahma Nano Singh, executing a sale deed and a separate deed of agreement to reconvey the land upon repayment of Rs.36,600. The agreement stipulated that reconveyance must occur within three years, making time the

N.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY AND ORS.versusMARIYAMMA (DEAD) BY PROPOSED LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28411 July 2005Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit in 1996 seeking a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction over land allegedly transferred by a 1953 sale deed that they claimed was actually a loan secured by an oral agreement to reconvey the property upon repayment. They asserted that the loan was fully repaid on 25 March 1987

SHANTI PRASAD DEVI AND ANR.versusSHANKAR MAHTO AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28511 July 2005Dismissed

The lessee, Shanti Prasad Devi, held a petrol pump on premises leased for fifteen years and sought renewal after the lease expired, sending a notice and continuing to pay rent which the lessor accepted. The lease contained specific renewal clauses requiring the option to be exercised before expiry and the terms to be f

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusBRIGADIER SUKHJIT SINGH

1993 INSC 21511 June 1993Dismissed

The dispute concerned a double‑storeyed building within the Jallowkhana complex at Kapurthala, occupied by the Punjab Public Works Department. Brigadier Sukhjit Singh, a heir‑apparent of the erstwhile Maharaja, claimed ownership based on a 1925 farman that vested the entire complex in each succeeding heir, while the St

VIMALESHWAR NAGAPPA SHETversusNOOR AHMED SHERIFF & ORS.

2011 INSC 38111 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant, Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet, bought a dwelling house from several co‑sharers of a deceased owner but the agreement of sale did not include the minor grandson (Defendant No. 3). The minor did not join the sale and later offered to purchase the 9/11 share, prompting the High Court to fix a market value and di

OLYMPUS SUPERSTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.versusMEENA VIJAY KHETAN AND ORS.

1999 INSC 24011 May 1999Dismissed

Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. entered into three main sale agreements for flats and three separate interior design agreements, each containing arbitration clauses. Disputes arose over payment, construction progress and interior work, and a sole arbitrator was appointed under the main agreements. The arbitrator gran

P. RAMASUBBAMMAversusV. VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

2022 INSC 41311 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12‑04‑2005, alleging payment of a substantial advance consideration and that the vendor (defendant No.1) had admitted both the execution of the agreement and receipt of the money. The vendor’s attorney (defendant No.2) later executed two

RAMJI GUPTA & ANR.versusGOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL (D) & ORS.

2013 INSC 24211 April 2013Dismissed

The dispute involved a landlord-tenant suit where the tenants claimed ownership of a shop based on a sale deed executed by a life‑estate holder, Janki Bibi (2nd). An earlier 1958 judgment had held that Janki Bibi possessed only a life interest and could not transfer the property. The Small Causes Court decreed the land

M.M.S. INVESTMENTS, MADURAI AND ORS.versusV. VEERAPPAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 40911 April 2007Dismissed

M.M.S. Investments sued Veerappan and others for specific performance of a sale agreement. After a decree was passed, the defendants sold the disputed land to new purchasers who were impleaded in the appeal. The High Court allowed the impleadment but held that the defence of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c

SHANMUGHASUNDARAM AND ORS.versusDIRAVIA NADAR (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 13311 March 2005Dismissed

Two brothers, who were co‑owners of inherited land with three sisters, entered into a sale agreement with the appellant and an arbitration agreement to fix the price. The first arbitral award was set aside by the civil court on two grounds: breach of natural justice and the fact that the sisters, who owned a 3/5 share,

JAICHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.versusSAHNULAL & ANR.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 71910 December 2024Disposed off

The case involved a suit for specific performance of a 1996 sale agreement concerning a half‑acre land in Bilaspur. The trial court granted specific performance, but the first appellate court set aside that part of the decree, ordering only a refund of earnest money, citing alleged hardship under Section 20(2)(b) of th

RAJ KISHORE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusPREM SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 87010 December 2010Dismissed

The plaintiff Raj Kishore executed a sale deed in 1974 transferring land to Prem Singh for Rs 6,000, claiming it was a security for a loan and that an agreement for re‑conveyance would revert the land upon repayment by 6 July 1981. He sued for a declaration that the sale deed was void and that he remained the owner. Th

RASHEEDA KHATOON (D) THROUGH LRS.versusASHIQ ALI S/O LT. ABU MOHD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2014 INSC 70110 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an alleged oral gift (hiba) of a house by Abdul Haq, a Muslim, to Rasheeda Khatoon about seven years before his death. After Haq's death, his heirs sought possession, prompting Rasheeda to file a suit for declaration of ownership. The trial court and first appellate court held the oral gift valid, de

B. VIJAYA BHARATHIversusP. SAVITRI & ORS.

2017 INSC 73410 August 2017Dismissed

The plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell a property with the first defendant, paying two‑thirds of the price in advance and agreeing that the defendant would execute a General Power of Attorney for the plaintiff's husband. On 13 March 1992 the defendant repudiated this by refusing to register the Power of Attorn

A.C. ARULAPPAN .versusSMT. AHALYA NAIK

2001 INSC 35510 August 2001Disposed off

The appellant, A.C. Arulappan, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent, Smt. Ahalya Naik, for his RCC building, receiving an advance of Rs.42,000. A second agreement was later executed stipulating a deadline for execution of the sale deed, which the appellant failed to meet. The respondent sued for specific p

OM PRAKASHversusAMARJIT SINGH & ANR.

1988 INSC 21710 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Om Prakash, was placed ex parte in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a small piece of land. He filed several applications to set aside the ex parte order, but they were dismissed as unsigned or time‑barred. The trial court decreed specific performance based on the plaintiff’s witnes

ADHUNIK STEELS LTD.versusORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS PVT. LTD.

2007 INSC 74210 July 2007Disposed off

O.M.M. Private Limited, holder of a mining lease, terminated its contract with Adhunik Steels Ltd., alleging violation of Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Adhunik filed a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an interim injunction to restrain termination and dispos

SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS.versusBRIJ PAL SINGH AND ORS.

1996 INSC 68710 May 1996Dismissed

The first petitioner purchased land from the respondent under a 1975 sale deed that included a reconveyance agreement. The respondent sued for specific performance, alleging the petitioner refused to execute the sale deed despite the respondent’s readiness and attendance at the Sub‑Registrar’s office on 9 March 1977, w

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

ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAIversusJANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

1986 INSC 7010 April 1986Dismissed

The appellant, an occupant of two plots of land, had earlier contracted to purchase the land from the former Girasdar, whose agreement required the Girasdar to obtain permission to convert the agricultural land into a village site before a sale deed could be executed. The appellant later entered into a second agreement

ATMA RAMversusCHARANJIT SINGH

2020 INSC 16210 February 2020Dismissed

The petitioner entered into a 1994 agreement to purchase land for Rs.4,38,000 and paid earnest money, with performance due on 7 Oct 1996. After the seller cited pending litigation, the petitioner issued a notice on 12 Nov 1996 and filed a suit on 13 Oct 1999 seeking a mandatory injunction to compel execution of the tra

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGARversusCHANDRAN & ORS.

2017 INSC 12510 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed to have purchased 2.73 acres of land that he said formed part of Survey No. 188 and sought a declaration of title and a mandatory injunction to have his name entered in the revenue records. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the plaintiff had not correctly described the suit p

SHAKUNT ALA DEVI & ORS.versusCHAMRU MAHTO & ANR.

2009 INSC 13810 February 2009Dismissed

The appellants sought restoration of possession of land under Section 145(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code after an Executive Magistrate had declared their right to possession in 1994. The respondent obtained a revision and the High Court set aside the lower courts' orders, invoking the Specific Relief Act and the Lim

BIBI JAIBUNISHAversusJAGDISH PANDIT AND ORS.

1997 INSC 12810 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Bibi Jaibunisha sold a property to Jagdish Pandit by a registered conveyance dated 21‑02‑1969, which included an agreement that the property would be reconveyed for Rs 4,000. She filed a suit for specific performance of reconveyance on 07‑04‑1975. The trial court and the Patna High Court dismissed the suit, holding tha

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.

2024 INSC 2810 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The sellers (Alagammal and others) entered into a registered agreement of sale on 22‑Nov‑1990 with the buyers (Ganesan and others) for Rs.21,000, stipulating that the balance be paid within six months. The buyers paid only a fraction of the amount and failed to complete the purchase before the deadline, while the selle

NARENDER SINGHversusJAI BHAGWAN AND ORS.

2004 INSC 7059 December 2004Dismissed

The father, a tenure‑holder, executed a sale agreement for agricultural lands that were part of a consolidation proceeding and were recorded solely in his name. The plaintiff sued for specific performance, while the father (deceased) and his sons argued that the father could not sell the entire land because the sons we

MUNI LALversusTHE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR.

1995 INSC 7099 November 1995Dismissed

Muni Lal insured his truck with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company and lost it in October 1983 due to the driver’s misfeasance. He filed a suit in 1986 seeking only a declaration that he was entitled to the insured amount, omitting any claim for monetary compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit for lac

SUSHIL KUMAR AGARWALversusMEENAKSHI SADHU & ORS.

2018 INSC 9399 October 2018Dismissed

The appellant, a developer, entered into a development agreement with the respondents, owners of a plot of land, to construct a building, but the owners later denied execution of the agreement. The developer sued for specific performance of the contract. The Supreme Court examined whether Section 14(3)(c)(iii) of the S

NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

2017 INSC 10159 October 2017Disposed off

The plaintiff (respondent No. I) entered into a genuine sale agreement on 18‑01‑1983 with defendants Nos.1‑5 for a house, paying Rs.1,000 as advance. Instead of executing the sale deed, the defendants sold the same house to defendant No.6 on 09‑02‑1983, relying on a purported earlier agreement dated 04‑01‑1983, which t

RAMCHANDRA DAGDU SONAVANE (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusVITHU HIRA MAHAR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2009 INSC 11789 October 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, heirs of a Watandar, sued the respondents for a permanent injunction, asserting their right to the watan lands based on a 1941 declaration. The respondents claimed they were the adopted son of the deceased Watandar, relying on a 1931 order of the Mamlatdar, and sought re‑grant of the land. The trial cou

LOURDU MARI DAVID AND ORS.versusLOUIS CHINNAYA AROGIASWAMY AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8669 August 1996Dismissed

Petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a 1976 sale agreement for two doors, claiming they had paid part consideration and were ready to perform, while respondents 1 and 2 delayed execution. The trial court found breach by respondents but denied specific performance, holding that respondent 3 was a bona‑fi

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 4919 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a registered agreement for sale of 2.90 acres of land executed in 1981, which the plaintiffs sought to enforce by specific performance. The defendants argued that the agreement was a sham, forged, and that they were bona‑fide purchasers without notice of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that Sec

MIHAN INDIA LTD.versusGMR AIRPORTS LTD. & ORS

2022 INSC 5349 May 2022Dismissed

Mihan India Ltd (MIL) invited global tenders for the up‑gradation, modernisation, operation and maintenance of Nagpur Airport. GMR Airports Ltd (GAL) emerged as the highest bidder after negotiating a higher revenue‑share and MIL issued a letter dated 07‑03‑2019 accepting the revised proposal, which GAL acknowledged. De

KISHOR GHANSHYAMSA PARALIKAR (DEAD)versusBALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN MANGRUL (NATH) AND ANR.

2022 INSC 5389 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a sale deed of agricultural land, which was settled by a compromise decree requiring payment of the balance consideration within one month. The appellant delayed five days, applied for permission to pay the balance, which the trial court allowed, and the sale deed

BEEMANENI MAHA LAKSHMIversusGANGUMALLA APPA RAO (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS.

2019 INSC 6569 May 2019Dismissed

The appellant, a vendor, entered into an agreement to sell land to the respondent, the vendee, on 30‑12‑1985, with part payment of Rs.55,000 and the balance to be paid within three months, subject to the vendor measuring the land and delivering the original sale deed and land‑ceiling clearance documents. The vendee pai

SUPERINTENDENCE COMPANY OF INDIA (P) LTD.versusKRISHAN MURGAI

1980 INSC 1249 May 1980Dismissed

The Superintendence Company employed the respondent as its New Delhi branch manager and inserted a clause prohibiting him from joining a competitor or starting a similar business for two years after he "leaves" the company. The company terminated his employment and he started a competing business. The company sued for

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

BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKARversusM/S KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS.

2008 INSC 4709 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit filed by a construction company for specific performance of a development agreement, in which the plaintiff later sought to amend the pleadings to implead a third‑party appellant and to declare a consent decree, issued in a related earlier suit, null and void. The Court held that the a

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

DR. YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKHversusRAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE

2021 INSC 6478 October 2021Disposed off

The appellant, Dr. Yashwantrao Deshmukh, was sued for specific performance of a land sale agreement and the trial court partially decreed ex parte, granting monetary relief but denying specific performance. On appeal, the case was transferred to a district court where a fresh notice was published; the appellant did not

D.R. RATHNA MURTHYversusRAMAPPA

2010 INSC 6968 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant purchased a plot of land on 23 April 1986 and sold it the next day to the respondent by a registered sale deed. In 1991-92 the appellant claimed the deed was conditional, asserting that the word "Avadhi" and a clause allowing repurchase within ten years had been inserted after execution. The trial court,

KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusKALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6978 October 2010Dismissed

The vendee, Kammana Sambamurthy, entered into a sale agreement with the vendor, Kalipatnapu Kamaraju, for an entire house, paying an advance of Rs.10,000. The vendor's wife, Kalipatnapu Atchutamma, later claimed a half‑share in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought cancellation of the agr

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

TELIKICHERLA SESIBHUSHAN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusKALLI RAJA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2014 INSC 6108 September 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Telikicherla Sesibhushan, agreed to purchase land from the deceased respondent, Kalli Raja Rao, and to repay a Rs.20,000 loan taken by the respondent from a bank. The appellant made partial payments but failed to repay the entire loan, leading to a decree against the bank's suit for recovery. The respond

BALRAJ TANEJA AND ANR.versusSUNIL MADAN AND ANR.

1999 INSC 3858 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Balraj Taneja and others appealed against a Delhi High Court decree granting specific performance to Sunil Madan. The High Court had passed the decree under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC solely because the defendants failed to file a written statement, without examining a material factual dispute concerning an Income‑Tax

RATTAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVESversusS.N. BHALLA & ORS.

2012 INSC 3238 August 2012Disposed off

The appellant purchased a plot in 1978 and paid Rs.50,000 as earnest money. The vendors were contractually obliged to obtain sale permission and an Income Tax clearance, but failed to do so within six months, invoking Clause 9 to terminate the agreement and refunding the earnest money. The appellant protested the refun

MIS. CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALSversusMIS. RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES P. LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 5498 August 2011Disposed off

Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (vendor) and Ramaniyam Real Estates (buyer) entered into a sale agreement for 66 cents of land, of which 19 cents were declared excess under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. The contract made time of the essence, requiring the buyer to obtain clearance from the land‑ceiling authoritie

KALLATHIL SREEDHARAN AND ANR.versusKOMATH PANDYALA PRASANNA AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8528 August 1996Dismissed

In a partition suit, a cinema theatre was allotted to a woman and her minor son subject to payment of Rs.1,55,000 each. Unable to pay, the theatre was auctioned. The appellant advanced Rs.2,10,391 to the woman to set aside the sale, on the condition that she would sell the theatre to him for Rs.7,44,000. The appellant

R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASADversusSWAMINATHAN & ANR.

2024 INSC 4638 July 2024Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a 1998 agreement to purchase a property for Rs 30 lakhs, having paid an initial advance of Rs 3 lakhs and claiming to have paid an additional Rs 15 lakhs thereafter. The trial court denied specific performance but ordered the defendant to refund the total advance o

NANDKISHORE LALBHAI MEHTAversusNEW ERA FABRICS PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 4908 July 2015Dismissed

The appellant, Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta, entered into a sale agreement with the respondents for a plot in Mahim, subject to obtaining consent from the Mill Mazdoor Sabha (labour union) and various statutory permissions. The union refused consent, and the respondents declared the agreement cancelled and offered to retu

SUBHADRA AND ORS.versusTHANKAM

2010 INSC 3858 July 2010Dismissed

The appellants entered into an agreement to sell a 5‑cent parcel of land together with the structures described in Exhibit 81 to the respondent for a total price of Rs.45,250. After paying earnest money, a dispute arose over the extent of the property to be transferred, with the appellants contending that only the land

LAXMAN TATYABA KANKATE & ANR.versusTARAMATI HARISHCHANDRA DHATRAK

2010 INSC 3868 July 2010Dismissed

The respondents entered into an agreement to sell land to the appellants and paid Rs 10,000 as earnest money, but the appellants failed to execute the sale deed. The respondents sued for specific performance and, alternatively, for refund of the earnest money. The trial court awarded only the refund, while the first ap

ANAND NARAYAN SHUKLAversusJAGAT DHARI

2026 INSC 4638 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought specific performance of a sale deed for 3.75 acres of land, and the trial court decreed payment of the balance consideration within a month or deposit in court. The appellant failed to pay or deposit until November 2020, while the respondent filed an appeal that was dismissed for non‑prosecution in

M/S BEST SELLERS RETAIL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.versusM/S ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD. & ORS.

2012 INSC 2148 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Best Sellers Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. (and A.C. Thirumalaraj), challenged a temporary injunction granted to respondent Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. that restrained the defendants from leasing or encumbering a suit property pending a suit for specific performance. The trial court and High Court had held a prima

THOTA LAKSHMI VENKATA BALAversusMUTTAMSETTI SEETHAMMA

2008 INSC 6168 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, Thota Lakshmi Venkata Bala, executed a sale agreement on 19‑August‑1991 to sell land to the respondent, Muttamsetti Seethamma, for Rs.1.5 lakh as discharge of a loan. She later cancelled the deed, claimed only Rs.1 lakh had been received and demanded the remaining Rs.50,000 with interest. The respondent

S. RANGARAJU NAIDUversusS. THIRUVARAKKARASU.

1995 INSC 1768 March 1995Disposed off

The appellant borrowed Rs.35,500 from the respondent and his brother, paid Rs.20,000 and executed a promissory note for the balance of Rs.15,500 with 9% interest. On the same day he also executed an agreement to sell three plots of land for the same amount, intending the sale to discharge the note. The respondent sued

A. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR.versusR. PANNERSELVAM

2021 INSC 658 February 2021Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession of a property he claimed to have purchased from the heirs of a former owner. The trial court upheld the injunction, finding the plaintiff in possession, but the First Appellate Court set aside the decre

B.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR.versusM/S BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD

2008 INSC 1558 February 2008Disposed off

MIS Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd filed two suits for specific performance of contracts for sale of certain properties against the appellants, B.K. Sri Harsha and others. The trial court held that the respondent was in adverse possession, ready to perform, and that the agreements were valid and within the limitation pe

MANSUKHLAL DHANRAJ JAIN AND ORS. ETC.versusEKNATH VITHAL OGALE ETC.

1995 INSC 1068 February 1995Dismissed

The appellants, licensees of certain premises in Greater Bombay, filed suits for permanent injunction in the City Civil Court to prevent the licensor‑defendants from forcibly evicting them. The defendants challenged the City Civil Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Cou

VIJAY PRABHUversusS.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS.

2025 INSC 528 January 2025Dismissed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement and delivery of possession of the property, alternatively claiming damages and refund of earnest money. The trial court denied specific performance and ordered refund of the earnest money with interest. On appeal, the High Court held that

P.C. VARGHESEversusDEVAKI AMMA BALAMBIKA DEVI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5017 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, P.C. Vargese, sued the respondents for specific performance of a sale agreement covering 19 cents of land, seeking also a decree of partition. The agreement required the respondents to obtain court permission to sell the minor’s one‑fourth share, which was denied during the suit. The appellant amended hi

SARGUNAM (D) BY LR.versusCHIDAMBARAM AND ANR.

2004 INSC 5867 October 2004Dismissed

The plaintiff, Chidambaram, entered into a sale agreement on 14‑June‑1979 to purchase a premises, but the vendor failed to deliver title. While the suit for specific performance was pending, the vendor purportedly sold the same property to Sargunam on 29‑Nov‑1979, allegedly under a prior agreement dated 15‑Apr‑1978. Th

M/S VIRGO INDUSTRIES (ENG.) P.LTD.versusM/S.VENTURETECH SOLUTIONS P.LTD.

2012 INSC 3837 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Virgo Industries (Eng.) Ltd filed two suits in 2005 seeking a permanent injunction against VentureTech Solutions Ltd to prevent alienation of two parcels of land. In 2007, while those suits were still pending, Virgo filed two additional suits for specific performance of the same sale agreements. The High Court held the

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORSversusMANJIT KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 9307 August 2019Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined whether a plaintiff who has acquired title by adverse possession can file a suit under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for a declaration of title and injunction, i.e., use adverse possession as a "sword" rather than merely a defence. The Court overruled its earlier decisions in Gurudwa

M/S. GAIL (I) LTD.versusBAL KISHAN AGARWAL GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.

2008 INSC 9157 August 2008Disposed off

GAIL (I) Ltd. entered into a gas‑supply agreement with Bal Kishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., but the gas meter was repeatedly found tampered, leading to successive disconnections. The respondent filed a civil suit seeking reconnection of gas without any payment or security, even though arbitration proceedings under

DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.versusRAMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3017 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The case involved a dispute between the heirs of the late Dwarka Prasad Agarwal and his partner Ramesh Chandra Agarwal over control of the printing press and newspaper business of Dainik Bhaskar. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal allegedly forged a lease, altered the partnership settlement, and took forcible possession of the pre

PADMAKUMARI & ORS.versusDASAYYAN &ORS.

2015 INSC 2887 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Padmakumari & ors., entered into an unregistered agreement to purchase 2.08 acres of land from defendants 1‑11, agreeing to pay the balance consideration of Rs 63,000 within nine months. The plaintiff failed to make this payment within the stipulated period, while defendants 12‑15 subsequently purchased

SHRI RAMESHWAR PRASAD (D) BY LRS,versusSHRI BASANTI LAL

2008 INSC 4637 April 2008Disposed off

Rameshwar Prasad filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which the trial court granted. The respondent Basanti Lal appealed, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the decree, holding that the plaintiff had not pleaded or proved his readiness to pay interest, a term of the contract, thereby fail

NARENDRA HIRAWAT AND CO.versusSHOLAY MEDIA ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 2687 March 2022Directions issued

The appellant, Narendra Hirawat & Co. (NHC), entered into film‑licence agreements with Sholay Media Entertainment (SME) for a total consideration of Rs 20 crore, later amended by addenda and a Deed of Settlement dated 03‑12‑2018 requiring NHC to pay Rs 8.71 crore in four tranches. Disputes arose over the issuance of in

JANARDHAN NARASIMHA NAYAKversusBALWANT VENKATESH KULKARNI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 2477 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff (Respondent No. I) filed a suit for specific performance of a 1972 contract of sale. The trial court decreed in his favour, but the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, which the Karnataka High Court allowed, holding that the Fi

C.S. VENKATESHversusMURTHY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 1437 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, C.S. Venkatesh, appealed a High Court order that had declared a 1975 sale deed executed by the deceased plaintiff, A.S.C. Murthy, as a nominal security transaction and directed specific performance of a reconveyance agreement. The Supreme Court examined whether the sale deed was an outright sale or a mor

RAJINDER KUMARversusSHRI KULDEEP SINGH & OTHERS

2014 INSC 847 February 2014Disposed off

Eight legal heirs sold a Delhi property to Kuldeep Singh in 1980, with the balance consideration to be paid after obtaining permission from the Land & Development Officer. A minor heir, Rajinder Kumar, challenged the agreement, and Kuldeep Singh filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed ex parte in 1984 a

MUSLIMVEETIL CHALAKKAL AHAMMED HAJIversusSAKEENA BEEVI

2026 INSC 357 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff‑appellant, Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji, sought specific performance of a 2007 agreement to purchase a 1/11th share of a three‑acre school property from the defendant‑respondent, Sakeena Beevi, who was one of nine heirs. After the death of the father, the heirs executed an unregistered power of att

KAMAL KUMARversusPREMLATA JOSHI & ORS.

2019 INSC 167 January 2019Dismissed

Kamal Kumar filed a suit seeking specific performance of a contract concerning a piece of land. The trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and was not entitled to a refund of earne

BIRMA DEVI & ORS.versusSUBHASH & ANR.

2024 INSC 9496 December 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, who claim to be subsequent purchasers of a suit property, challenged a High Court order directing the execution court to grant possession to the decree‑holders (plaintiffs) in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court had decreed specific performance but did not expressly awa

RAKESH MOHINDRAversusANITA BERI AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 8366 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit under the Specific Relief Act seeking a declaration of title over a property. The defendant sought to prove a disclaimer letter by secondary evidence because the original was allegedly misplaced in the custody of the DEO, Ambala, and submitted a photocopy along with a witness from the DEO. T

RAMESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.versusASRUDDIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRSANDANOTHER

2015 INSC 7356 October 2015Disposed off

The plaintiff claimed that a sale agreement dated 21‑06‑2004 with the defendant for a 12‑kanal land, mortgaged to a bank, was breached when the defendant failed to execute the sale deed after receiving Rs 4 lakhs as earnest money. The defendant contended that he had already sold the same land to a third party on 07‑05‑

HABBAN SHAHversusSHERUDDIN

2026 INSC 4516 May 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Habban Shah, had agreed to sell agricultural land to the respondent, Sheruddin, for a stipulated price, receiving an advance but requiring the balance payment before execution of the sale deed. The trial court decreed specific performance, directing the appellant to execute the deed within three months o

SAMARPAN VARISHTHA JAN PARISAR & ORS.versusRAJENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL & ORS.

2022 INSC 5286 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Lucknow operated an old‑age home where two senior citizens were admitted as inmates on payment of fees and subject to a set of rules. The home’s management terminated their membership under Rule 21 after alleging disruptive behaviour, and the inmates sought an injunction to prevent their di

TRILOKI NATH SINGHversusANIRUDH SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, who purchased land by a sale deed in 1984, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a compromise decree passed by the High Court in 1994 in a partition suit was illegal, fraudulent and void. The decree was passed in a second appeal concerning parties other than the appellant, who was a stranger to the com

RATNAGIRI NAGAR PARISHADversusGANGARAM NARAYAN AMBEKAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 3886 May 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad sought to set up a solid waste disposal project on land allotted by the State, which was challenged by a group of local residents who filed a suit for a permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence, but the first appellate court and the High Court reversed t

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.

2014 INSC 3616 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 0.90‑acre parcel of land in Pune Cantonment held under an 1827 government grant. The respondents had purchased the lease‑hold rights and the superstructure on the land, while the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board) issued a resumption notice in 1971 claiming the land remained government prope

MOHAMMEDIA COOP. BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.versusLAKSHMI S. COOP. BUILDING SOCIETY LTD & ORS.

2008 INSC 5886 May 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 35‑acre wakf land in Vijayawada. The Wakf Board had appointed eight ‘Mujawars’ to manage the Dargah, and they entered into a sale agreement on 2 August 1982 with Mohammedia Co‑op Building Society Ltd. The sale required prior sanction of the State Wakf Board and publication of the proposed transa

SUBHADRA RANI PAL CHOUDHARYversusSHEIRLY WEIGAL NAIN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 1876 April 2005Disposed off

The mother bequeathed two properties to her daughters, Subhadra Rani Pal Choudhary and Jyotsnamayee Pal Choudhary, who obtained probate. The brothers appealed; during pendency the sisters were appointed administrators‑cum‑joint receivers and were permitted by the Calcutta High Court to lease the premises to Harvard Hou

CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ETC.versusBROJO NATH GANGULY & ANR.

1986 INSC 666 April 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., a government‑owned company under section 617 of the Companies Act, qualifies as "the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether clause (i) of Rule 9 in its service rules – which allows termination of a permanent employe

MRS. A. KANTHAMANIversusMRS. NASREEN AHMED

2017 INSC 2026 March 2017Dismissed

The appellant, owner of a Chennai property, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent on 5 March 1989, received more than 50% of the purchase price and promised to execute the sale deed by 31 December 1989. The appellant later refused to execute the deed, prompting the respondent to file a suit for specific per

ABDUL RAHIM & ORS.versusSK. ABDUL ZABAR & ORS.

2009 INSC 3316 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The father, Haji Sk. Abdullah, executed a registered gift deed on 21‑02‑1973 in favour of his younger son Abdul Razak, transferring a house that was let out to tenants. After the father's death, Razak died and his heirs (the appellants) succeeded to his interest. The elder son (respondent No.1) filed a suit in 1980 see

GUNWANTBHAI MULCHAND SHAH AND ORS.versusANTON ELIS FAREL AND ORS

2006 INSC 1366 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, successors of a predecessor who had entered into a 1964 agreement to purchase a property, filed a suit on 4 April 1994 for specific performance of that agreement and a perpetual injunction, after a public notice and objections in November 1993. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limita

M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITEDversusR. PERUMALSWAMY AND ORS.

2020 INSC 1396 February 2020Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu acquired 49.67 acres of land in Porur Village under the Land Acquisition Act and, on 26 February 1964, executed a deed of assignment vesting 46.04 acres in WS Industries (India) Ltd (WSIL) free of encumbrances. The first respondent, R. Perumalswamy, claimed that his father had purchased the land

BALKRISHNA DATTATRAYA GALANDEversusBALKRISHNA RAMBHAROSE GUPTA AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 1536 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, claiming to be a tenant, filed a suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking a permanent injunction against the landlord, asserting he was in actual possession of the premises. The landlord contended that a settlement in an earlier suit (RCS No.1004/1988) caused the plaintiff to vacate

H.P. PYAREJANversusDASAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 736 February 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, H.P. Pyarejan, entered into a sale agreement with five co‑owners, advancing a loan on condition that all would execute the deed. Only four signed, and the plaintiff sued for specific performance including the fifth defendant. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, finding no eviden

K.S. VIDYANADAM AND ORS.versusVAIRAVAN

1997 INSC 1206 February 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff K.S. Vidyanadam entered into a sale agreement on 15‑December‑1978 to purchase a house for Rs.60,000, paying only Rs.5,000 as earnest money and agreeing to complete the purchase within six months. He failed to purchase stamp papers, pay the balance or demand execution of the sale deed for more than two and

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LIMITEDversusKS INFRASPACE LLP LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 46 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. filed suits for specific performance of a sale of land and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from executing further documents. The defendants appealed, arguing that no concluded contract existed and that the plaintiff had delayed instituting suit, allowing third

M/S. PEARLITE LINERS PVT. LTD.versusMANORAMA SIRSI

2004 INSC 216 January 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Pearlite Liners Pvt Ltd. transferred the respondent, a trainee accountant later promoted, from its head office to a sales office. The employee refused to comply, was absent, and a chargesheet was issued. She filed a suit seeking a declaration that the transfer order was void, that she remained in service, and an injunc

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant purchased land from the original owner, Veerabasayya, and was given possession after paying earnest money, but the owner died before the sale deed was executed. The respondents, as legal heirs, sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, and the trial court declared them owners but denied possessi

B.L. SREEDHAR AND ORS.versusK.M. MUNIREDDY (DEAD) AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5185 December 2002Dismissed

The case concerned service‑inam lands that were originally attached to a hereditary village office. After the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, the lands were resumed and re‑granted to the plaintiff and his son, who later consented to a re‑grant in favour of his son (defendant No.3). Defendant No.3 sold part

BEHARILAL AND ANR.versusSMT. BHURI DEVI AND ORS.

1996 INSC 14395 December 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan Government’s Mandi Committee allotted two plots to Beharilal in 1953, issued a patta and delivered possession in 1954. After the patta was cancelled in 1956, the same plots were re‑allotted to Ram Gopal (husband of Bhuri Devi) and possession was handed over to him. Criminal proceedings under S. 145 Cr.P.C

MAN KAUR (DEAD) BY LRS.versusHARTAR SINGH SANGHA

2010 INSC 6725 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Man Kaur, owned a plot that was sold to the respondent, Hartar Singh Sangha, by an agreement executed through attorney‑holders. The respondent paid earnest money and claimed he was ready to complete the purchase, but the vendor failed to execute the sale deed. The respondent sued for specific performance

SITA RAM AND ORS.versusRADHEY SHY AM

2007 INSC 10045 October 2007Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of a land sale contract, which the trial court decreed in their favour. The first appellate court set aside the decree, holding that the plaint did not comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the High Court dismissed the appellants' second app

SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD JAINversusSHRI GANGA SINGH

1999 INSC 4545 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Ganga Singh, first obtained an injunction against M.P. Jain and the Municipal Corporation and later filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act seeking possession of a tuck‑shop premises. The trial court, despite finding that the respondent was not a tenant of the appellant or his predecesso

SAMAR KUMAR ROY (D) THROUGH LR (MOTHER)versusJHARNA BERA

2017 INSC 8605 September 2017Disposed off

Samar Kumar Roy filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (and Section 38 for injunction) seeking a declaration that his alleged marriage under the Special Marriage Act was void. The plaintiff died during the proceedings and his mother was substituted as his legal representative under Order 22 Rule

KALAVAKURTI VENKATA SUBBAIAHversusBALA GURAPPAGARI GURVI REDDY

1999 INSC 3095 August 1999Dismissed

The appellant executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent but refused to cooperate for its registration. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance seeking registration of the deed, along with injunction or possession of the immovable property. The trial court held that the suit was not maintainable unde

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

RAMESHWAR DUBEY AND ORS.versusMASOMAT ASHA KAUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 8255 August 1996Dismissed

Rameshwar Dubey and others filed a suit on 15 February 1973 under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaration that two sale deeds (dated 12 July 1966 and 14 December 1970) were void because fraud had been perpetrated on the plaintiff. The trial court and the Patna High Court held that the fraud rendered t

VINOD SETHversusDEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3475 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff, a builder, sued the owners of a residential property for specific performance of an alleged oral collaboration agreement to develop the land. The High Court, noting the suit's low chance of success and heavy court dockets, ordered the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs as damages if h

MUDDASANI SAROJANAversusMUDDASANI SAROJANA

2016 INSC 3735 May 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff purchased a property from Buchamma, the sole surviving sister of the deceased Balaiah, under a registered sale deed dated 25‑04‑1981. After the widow Yashoda's death, the plaintiff took possession, but Defendant No.3 (Sarojana) evicted him, claiming to be Yashoda's adopted daughter and thus an heir. The p

STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusANDHRA BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. & ORS

2006 INSC 2915 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerns the ownership of Rs. 50 crore 9% tax‑free bonds (the "suit bonds") issued by Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd. (NPCL). Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. (ABFSL) sold the bonds to Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) on 26‑27 February 1992, and SCB paid consideration and received a Banker's Receipt. Canbank Mu

RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYAversusANIL PANJWANI

2003 INSC 2765 May 2003Case Partly allowed

Anil Panjwani purchased a vacant plot from Shri Niwas Vaidhya under a sale agreement dated 1‑Dec‑1985 and took possession, erecting a boundary wall. The defendant, R.C. Ardawatiya, later attempted to erect a hut on the plot. Panjwani sued for declaration of title, restoration of possession and injunctions. The trial co

SHRI LAKHI RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSHRI TRIKHA RAM AND ORS.

1998 INSC 715 February 1998Appeal(s) allowed

Lakshmi Ram (deceased) had an agreement with vendor Trikha Ram to sell land for a consideration, but the vendor sold the property to subsequent purchasers. Lakshmi Ram filed a suit for specific performance which was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the defendants argued that the suit was barred under Section 16(c

RAMJI RAI AND ANR.versusJAGDISH MALLAH (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. AND ANR.

2006 INSC 9474 December 2006Dismissed

Ramji Rai and another filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession of a disputed land and from obstructing the construction of a boundary wall. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the appellate court set aside the decree on the ground that the appel

RAVI SETIAversusMADAN LAL AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 11244 October 2019Dismissed

Ravi Setia filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 10‑11‑1989, seeking execution of the sale deed on 30‑04‑1990. The trial court held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform, relying solely on a certificate from the Sub‑Registrar that he was present on the said date, despite the defe

REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPAversusTHAKUBAI MADHAVARAO PATIL AND ORS.

1996 INSC 9964 September 1996Dismissed

The first respondent entered into an agreement on 11 March 1983 to purchase 3 acres 28 gunthas of land for Rs.12,000, paying Rs.2,000 as earnest money. The petitioner‑second defendant subsequently bought the same land on 8 July 1983 for Rs.6,000 and registered the sale deed. The first respondent sued for specific perfo

M/S. GUJARAT BOTTLING COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.versusTHE COCA COLA CO. AND ORS.

1995 INSC 4414 August 1995Dismissed

Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd (GBC) entered into a 1993 licence agreement with Coca Cola to bottle and distribute beverages under several trade marks, which included a negative covenant prohibiting GBC from dealing in competing products during the agreement's term. A subsequent 1994 agreement, intended to register GBC as a

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

MRS. SARADAMANI KANDAPPANversusMRS. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4464 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property, paying an advance and agreeing to pay the balance in three instalments, with clause 6 expressly making timely payment the essence of the contract. The respondents cancelled the agreement when the appellant failed to pay the second and third instalm

STATE OF HARYANAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3904 June 2004

The Supreme Court upheld a 2002 decree that mandated the State of Punjab to complete the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link (SYL) canal within one year, directing the Union of India to intervene if Punjab failed. Punjab’s subsequent suit challenging the decree, the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

TEK SINGHversusSHASHI VERMA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 1314 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a revision petition challenging the lower courts' refusal to grant an interim mandatory injunction in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act concerning possession of a shop. The High Court set aside the appellate court's findings of fact and entertained the revision, despite the order bei

SATYA JAIN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.versusANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (D) TR.LRS. & ORS.

2012 INSC 5553 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a suit for specific performance of a 1970 agreement to sell a Delhi bungalow. The plaintiffs argued they were ready to fulfil their obligations, while the defendant claimed the suit was time‑barred and that the plaintiffs breached clause 7 by not paying an additional Rs 1 lakh. The Court held

ISHWAR (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS & ORS.versusBHIM SINGH & ANR.

2024 INSC 6513 September 2024Dismissed

The respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a 2005 sale agreement, which was eventually decreed by the appellate court directing the appellants to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration. While the execution application was pending, the appellants sought rescission of the contract u

H.V. VEDAVYASACHARversusSHIVASHANKARA & ANR.

2009 INSC 9963 August 2009Disposed off

The plaintiff, H.V. Vedavyasachar, sued Shivashankara and others for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction directing possession of the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence, which was allowed,

K. S. VARGHESE & ORS.versusST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.

2017 INSC 5803 July 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the administration of Parish Churches within the Malankara Church, which has been divided between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The core dispute was whether the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church or individual Udampady agreements (such as those f

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST CHARITABLE TRUST & EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMANversusM/S PONNIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON/ MANAGING TRUSTEE

2012 INSC 2643 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society (appellant) challenged the Madras High Court Division Bench’s reversal of a single judge’s order rejecting the plaint against it in a suit for specific performance filed by M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust (respondent). The Supreme Court examined wh

SURINDER SINGHversusKAPOOR SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2453 May 2005Dismissed

Surinder Singh, who owned half of a property with his sister, entered into a sale agreement with Kapur Singh claiming authority to sell his sister's share as well. The sister denied such authority, leading the respondents to sue for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Punjab & Haryana High

GIAN KAURversusRAGHUBIR SINGH

2011 INSC 973 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Gian Kaur, filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership of 16 kanals of land, along with a consequential permanent injunction and an alternative prayer for possession. The trial court and first appellate court decreed the suit, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed, holding that a suit solely

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