Model Q. Ans For The Specific Relief Act1963

Model Q.& Ans.
for Judicial Service Main Examination

on
The Specific Relief Act, 1963
Q. 1
What are the provisions available to a person
dispossessed of Immovable property?
Ans
Sec 5 & 6 of the S.R. Act 1963 provide the right to recover
the possession of immovable property.
Sec -5 provides that:- who is entitled for specific immovable
property can recover the possession according to the
process of C.P.C 1908 i.e it gives the ground of title suit.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723
S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

B-2, B-3-4, Ansal building (Basement); Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-09
S -6 says If any person is dispossessed without his consent

from immovable property, otherwise than in due course of law, he
or any person claiming through him, may by suit recover
possession thereof.
S -6 of S.R. Act 1963 is based on the principle that no one
can take law into his hands for taking possession, even if he may
be lawful owner of immovable property in question. S -6 restrains
a person from using force and to disposes a person without his
consent otherwise than in due course of law. Question of title is
irrelevant in a proceeding U/S -6 of S.R. Act 1963, all that plaintif
has to show is that he has been dispossessed of immovable
property otherwise than in due course of law, within 6 months
prior to filing suit.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

Here possession means legal possession which may exist

with or without actual possession and with or without a rightful
origin. Thus where a trespasser is allowed to continue on the
property and the owner sleeps upon his rights and makes no
eforts to remove him he will gain possession U/S -6. The
possession of a tenant after the termination of the tenancy
continues to be a juridical possession. His right to possession
remains unless the owner gets a decree of eviction against him.
Till then if he is dispossessed he is entitled to seek restitution of
his possession.
Thus vide S -6 of S.R. Act 1963 If any person is
dispossessed without his consent of immovable property,
otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming
through him, by suit may seek restitution of his possession, within
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

6 months of his dispossession, on proving his legal possession on

immovable property in question.
Q. 2
When specific performance
enforced and when not?
of
contract
can
be
Ans
Specific performance of contract means actual
execution of the contract according to its stipulation and terms.
Under the S.R. Act 1963, contracts are two type:1. Contracts which are specifically enforceable by law provided
u/Ss-10,11(i), &14(iii).
2. Contracts which are not specifically enforceable by law
provided u/Ss- 11(ii), 14 (i) & (ii) and 17.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

Contracts when specifically enforced

S -10 of S.R. Act 1963 says The specific performance of any
contract may in the discretion of the Court, be enforced
(a)
When there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage

caused by the non performance of the act agreed to be done; or
(b)
When the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in

money for its non performance would not aford adequate relief.
Explanation:-Unless and until the contrary is proved the
court shall presume
(I)
that the breach of contract to transfer immovable property cannot

be adequately relived by compensation in money; and
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

(II)
that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be

relieved except in the following cases:(a) Where the property is not an ordinary article of commerce or is
of special value or interest to the plaintif, or consists of goods
which are not easily obtainable in market.
(b) Where the property is held by the defendant as the agent or
trustee of the plaintif.
Examples
(a)
A agrees to buy and B agrees to sell, a picture by a dead painter

and two rare china vases. Here A may compel B specifically to
perform this contract, for there is no standard for ascertaining the
actual damage which would be caused by its non performance.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

(b)
A contracts with B to sell him a house for Rs. 1,00000/- B is

entitled to a decree directing A to deliver the house to him by
paying the purchase money.
Contracts When not specifically enforced:S -14 of S.R. Act 1963 Says The following contracts cannot
be specifically enforced:
(a)
A contract for the non-performance of which compensation in

money is an adequate relief.
(b)
A contract, which runs into such minute or numerous details or

which is so dependent on the personal qualifications or volition of
the parties or otherwise from its nature is such that the Court
cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

(c)
When a contract is of the nature that it is determinable i.e. a

contract which can be determined or put to an end by a party to
the contract. e.g. In case of partnership at will, any partner can
put to an end.
(d)
A contract, the performance of which involves the performance of

a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise, cannot be
specifically enforced. e.g.:
(1)
A Contract to give maintenance.
(2)
A Contract to execute a deed every year.

cannot be specifically enforced.
S.K. Shukla
Mo: 9899660723

As per S -14 (2) except as provided by the Arbitration Act 1940,

No contract to refer present or future diferences to arbitration
shall be specifically enforced but any person who has made such a
contract and has refused to perform it ,sues in respect of any
subject which has contracted to refer the existence of such
contract shall bar the suit .
Vide S- 11(2)- A contract made by a trustee in excess of his
power or in breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.
Similarly vide S- 17 contract to sell or let property by one
who has no title is not specifically enforceable.
Q. 3
S.K. Shukla
Discuss the enforceability of the following contracts:
Mo: 9899660723

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
A an author, contracts with B, a publisher, to complete a

literary work.
A contracts to sell and B contracts to buy ten tones of iron
rods at Rs. 5000/- per tone.
A contracts to sell and B contracts to buy one residential
building at Chandigarh for Rs. 90,000/A contracts for the sale of property which is under
attachment by Courts order.
Mere agreement to enter into a contract.
Contract to marry.
A contracts to write a book for B. He writes the book, but
refuses to assign copyright and handover the manuscript
to B, who then sues A for specific performance.
S.K. Shukla
10
Mo: 9899660723

Ans
(1) S -14 (1) (b) of S.R. Act 1963 lays down that
Whenever in a contract, personal skill or volition is involved, the
Court would not enforce specific performance of such a contract
In the case, in hand, the author has contracted to complete
a literary work for the publisher. Such a contract involves personal
skill or volition of the author. Therefore, this contract cannot be
specifically enforced.
(2)
S -10 of the S.R. Act 1963 Says The specific performance of

any contract may, in the discretion of Court, be enforced When
the act, agreed to be done, is such that compensation in money
for its non-performance would not aford adequate relief.
So in the present case, B cannot claim specific performance
of the contract. The obvious reason is that the contract is an
S.K. Shukla
11
Mo: 9899660723

ordinary commercial contract and iron rods are easily obtainable

in the market. The pecuniary compensation would relieve the
breach of contract.
(3)
S -10 of S.R. Act 1963 provides that: the specific

performance of any contract may in discretion of the Court be
enforced When the act, agreed to be done, is such that
compensation in money for its non-performance would not aford
adequate relief.
Then the explanation provides that unless and until the
contrary is proved, the Court shall presume that the breach of
contract to transfer immovable property cannot be adequately
relieved by compensation in money.
S.K. Shukla
12
Mo: 9899660723

Thus it becomes clear that in a suit to enforce the contract

to transfer immovable property the Court will grant specific
performance unless special reasons to the contrary appear.
In the case in hand, A has contracted to sell his residential
house at Chandigarh and B has agreed to purchase the same for
Rs. 90,000/-. There are no special reasons as to why the specific
performance ought to be refused. Therefore, B is entitled to the
specific performance of this contract.
(4)
When some property has been attached under the order of Court,
the same cannot be sold without the permission of that Court.
Thus, a contract for the sale of property, which is under
attachment by Courts order only after the permission or approval
of the Court. If permission is refused, there is no contract in the
eyes of law, which can be enforced.
S.K. Shukla
13
Mo: 9899660723

(5)
In Govind Laxman Vs Hari Chand, AIR 1919

A mere agreement to enter into contract is
either of the parties and does not create any
obligation between the parties. Therefore, the
(6)
S -14 (1) (b) of the S.R. Act, 1963 Says A contract which is
dependent on personal skill or volition of the parties cannot be
specifically enforced. Performance of contract of marriage is
dependent on the volition of parties to marriage. So Court cannot
enforce specific performance of contract of marriage.
(7)
In the given problem, the contract is of personal qualification/skill

within the meaning of S -14 (1) (b) of the S.R. Act 1963. So Court
cannot enforce specific performance of its material terms. So the
contract in question cannot be specifically enforced.
S.K. Shukla
14
Bomby H.C held

determinable by
mutual rights or
same cannot be
Mo: 9899660723

Q. 4
What are the main principles on the basis of which
specific performance of a contract is decreed or Refused.
Ans.
Ss -20 to 24 of the S.R. Act 1963 provides discretion
and powers of Court.
S -20 provides Discretion as to decreeing specific performance:
(1)
The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary

and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it
is lawful to do so; but the discretion of court is not arbitrary, but
sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of
correction by a court of appeal.
S.K. Shukla
15
Mo: 9899660723

(2)
The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise
discretion not to decree specific performance
(a)
Where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at

the time of entering into the contract or the other circumstances
under which the contract was entered into are such that the
contract, though not voidable, gives the plaintif an unfair
advantage, over the defendant; or
(b)
Where the performance of the contract would involve some

hardship on the defendant, which he did not foresee, whereas its
non-performance would involve, no such hardship on the plaintif;
or
S.K. Shukla
16
Mo: 9899660723

(c)
Where the defendant entered into contract under circumstances,

which though not rendering the contract voidable, makes it
inequitable to enforce specific performance.
(3)
The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific

performance in any case where the plaintif has done substantial
acts or sufered losses in consequence of a contract capable of
specific performance.
(4)
The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a

contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable
at the instance of other party.
In Sardar Singh Vs Krishna Devi 1994 the S.C held
The circumstances specified in S -20 are only illustrastrative and
not exhaustive. The Court would take into consideration, the
S.K. Shukla
17
Mo: 9899660723

circumstances in each case, the conduct of the parties and the

respective interest under the contract.
In M.N. Mirza Vs B. Subhan 1993 All H.C held Under
the S.R. Act 1963, the Court exercises equitable jurisdiction. S -20
of the Act makes it clear that the jurisdiction to decree specific
performance is discretionary and there is no obligation on the part
of court to grant relief sought, merely because it is lawful to do so.
But the discretion has to be exercised by the Court guided by
sound judicial principles. It is settled law that false allegation in
the plaint disentitled the plaintif for the relief of specific
performance.
Q. 5
Whether all contracts can be specifically enforced?
If not, state exceptions.
S.K. Shukla
18
Mo: 9899660723

Ans
Ss -10 to 14 of the S.R. Act 1963 provide the cases in which
the specific performance of a contract may be enforced or cannot
be enforced.
S -20 of the Act provides that the jurisdiction to decree
specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound
to grant such relief merely because, it is lawful to do so, but the
discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable
guided by principles.
In Satya Narayan Vs Yellogiroa, AIR 1965 the S.C held
that the relief of specific performance of contract is discretionary.
The circumstances specified in S 20 are illustrative not exhaustive.
The Court should take into consideration the circumstances of the
case, the conduct of parties and their respective interests under
the contract mere delay is no ground for refusing relief.
S.K. Shukla
19
Mo: 9899660723

It was further observed that it is not possible or desirable to

lay down the circumstances under which a Court can exercise its
discretion against the plaintif. But they must be such that the
representation by the conduct or neglect of the plaintif is directly
responsible to the defendant to change his position to his
prejudice or such as to bring about a situation when it would be
inequitable to give him such a relief.
So, specific performance of contract shall not be granted
(a)
Where damages would be sufficient compensation
(b)
Where the contract is dependent on the personal qualifications or

volition of the parties.
(c)
Where the Court is unable to supervise the performance, or
S.K. Shukla
20
Mo: 9899660723

(d)
Where the contract is determinable in its nature, specific

performance may be refused
(i)
Where the contract gives the plaintif an unfair advantage over

the defendant.
(ii)
Where the performance would involve unforeseen hardship on the

defendant, or
(iii)
Where it is inequitable to do so.

However, where the plaintif has done substantial acts or
sufered losses in consequence of a contract, capable of specific
performance, the Court may decree specific performance.
S.K. Shukla
21
Mo: 9899660723

Q. 6
What is rectification of
instrument may be rectified?
an
instrument.
When
Ans.
Rectification of Instrument denotes correction of an
instrument in order to give efect to the real intention of the
parties. Thus the rectification of an instrument consists in making
it conform to the intention of the parties or the executants. So
when the Court is of the opinion that a deed as executed is not in
accordance with the intention of the party, it will rectify the deed
in order to bring it into conformity with the actual intention.
The circumstances when a Court can order rectification have
been enumerated in S -26 of the S.R. Act 1963 which provides as
under:
When Instrument may be rectified:
S.K. Shukla
22
Mo: 9899660723

(1)
When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties to

contract or other instrument in writing does not express their real
intention, then
(a)
Either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to

have the instrument rectified; or
(b)
The plaintif may, in any suit in which any right arising under the
instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be
rectified; or
(c)
A defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b) may, in

addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of
the instrument.
S.K. Shukla
23
Mo: 9899660723

(2)
If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to

be rectified under sub-section (1), the Court finds that the
instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real
intention of the parties, the Court may, in its discretion, direct
rectification of the instrument, so as to express that intention, so
far as this can be done, without prejudice to rights acquired by
third person in good faith and for value.
(3)
Any contract in writing may be first rectified, and then if the party
claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the Court
thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.
(4)
No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to

any party under this section unless, it has been specifically
claimed:
S.K. Shukla
24
Mo: 9899660723

Provided that where a party has not claimed any such relief
in his pleading, the Court shall, at any stage of the proceeding,
allow him to amend the pleading on such terms as may be just for
including such claim.
Illustration
A intending to sell to B his house and one of three godowns
adjacent to it, executes a conveyance, prepared by B, in which
through Bs fraud, all three godowns are included. Of the two
godowns which were fraudulently included, B gives one to C and
lets the other to D for rent, neither C nor D having any
knowledge of fraud. The conveyance may, as against B and C, be
rectified so as to exclude from it the godown given to C, but it
cannot be rectified so as to afect Ds lease.
S.K. Shukla
25
Mo: 9899660723

Q. 7
Ans.
where rescission may be adjudged or refused?

S -27 of the S.R. Act 1963 provides
Where rescission may be adjudged or refused:

(1)
Any person interested in a contract may sue to have it rescinded

and such rescission may be adjudged by the Court in any of the
following cases namely:
(a)
where the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintif;
(b)
where the contract is unlawful, for causes not apparent on its face
and the defendants is more to blame than the plaintif.
(2)
not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the Court

may refuse to rescind the contract:
S.K. Shukla
26
Mo: 9899660723

(a)
where the plaintif has expressly or impliedly rectified the

contract; or
(b)
where, owing to the change of circumstances, which has taken

place, since the making of the contract (not being due to any act
of the defendant himself) ,the parties cannot be substantially
restored to the position in which they stood, when the contract
was made; or
(c)
where third parties have, during the subsistence of the contract,

acquired rights in good faith without notice and for value; or
(d)
where only a part of the contract is sought to be rescinded and

such part is not severable from the rest of the contract.
S.K. Shukla
27
Mo: 9899660723

Illustration
A Sells a field to B. There is a right of way over the field of which A
has direct personal knowledge, but which he conceals from B. B is
entitled to have the contract rescinded.
In Hungerford Investment Trust Vs Haridas, AIR 1972
the S.C held A party has an option to rescind a contract and no
aid of the Court is necessary in this behalf. The Court only
adjudicates upon the antecedent right of the parties. By grant of
declaration that a contract has been validly rescinded the Court,
does not create a right in favour of a party.
Distinction between rectification & Rescission:
S.K. Shukla
28
Mo: 9899660723

In case of rectification the contract subsists and can be

specifically enforced after rectification but in case of rescission,
the contract is cancelled and the parties are not liable for any
obligation there under in future.
Q. 8
what is declaratory Remedy under the S.R. Act 1963?
Ans.
S -34 of the S.R. Act, 1963 deals with
Discretion of Court as to declaration of status or right: it

says
Any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any
property, may institute a suit against any person denying or
interested to deny, his title to such character or right and the
Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so
S.K. Shukla
29
Mo: 9899660723

entitled, and the plaintif need not in such suit ask for any further
relief:
Provided that no court shall make any such declaration
where the plaintif, being able to seek further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do so
Explanation: A trustee of property is a person interested to
deny a title adverse to the title of someone, who is not in
existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
In Bala Krishna Agarwal Vs. State of Assom AIR
1994 Gauhati H.C held that The object of the proviso to the
section 34 is to prevent multiplicity of suits by preventing a
person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and
then seeking in another suit the remedy without which the
S.K. Shukla
30
Mo: 9899660723

declaration would be useless and which could have been obtained

in the first suit.
Essentials for relief U/S -34 are:
(1)
That the plaintif is entitled to a legal character at the time of suit,

or to any right as to any property, or as to entitlement to property
on family partition.
(2)
The defendant has denied these or he is interested in denying that

character or right of the plaintif, and
(3)
The plaintif is not in position to ask for relief consequential upon

the declaration.
S.K. Shukla
31
Mo: 9899660723

If these conditions are satisfied, the plaintif need not ask for
any further relief than a mere declaration. But the Court shall not
make any such declaration, if he, being able to seek further relief
than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
S -35 of S.R. Act
declaration: It Says
1963
deals
with
Effect
of
A declaration made under this chapter VI, S -34 is binding only on

the parties to the suit, persons claiming through them respectively
and where any of the parties are trustees, on the persons for
whom, if in existence at the date of declaration, such parties
would be trustees.
In American Exp Bank Ltd. Vs Calcutta Steel Co. 1993
the S.C held that the plaintif cannot claim the relief as of right.
S.K. Shukla
32
Mo: 9899660723

It has to be granted according to sound principles of law. While

exercising its discretionary power, the Court must keep in its mind
the well settled principles of justice and fair play.
Q. 9
What is injunction. When different kinds of injunction
are granted.
Ans.
According to Halsbury An Injunction is a judicial process
whereby a party is ordered
(i)
To refrain from doing or
(ii)
To do particular act or thing.
S.K. Shukla
33
Mo: 9899660723

Thus injunction order is an order of court, whereby a party to

suit is ordered to do any particular act or to refrain from doing any
particular work/act.
As per S -36 of the S.R. Act 1963 A preventive relief is
granted at the discretion of court by injunction temporary or
perpetual.
S 37 deals with Temporary and perpetual injunction. It
says
(1)
Temporary injunctions are such as are to continue until a specific

time or until the further order of the court, and they may be
granted at any stage of a suit and are regulated by the CPC 1908.
S.K. Shukla
34
Mo: 9899660723

(2)
A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree made at

the hearing and upon the merits of the suit: the defendant is
thereby perpetually enjoined from the assertion of a right or from
commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the
plaintif.
The grant of injunction is discretionary; the same must be
exercised on settled principles of law to advance the cause of
justice. It is subject to correction by the appellate Court.
In Surya Nath Singh Vs Khedu Singh 1994 the S.C held
The High Court has an equitable jurisdiction to issue injunction
in appropriate cases independent of power under CPC 1908.
In Ravi Singhal & Ors Vs Manali Singhal & Ors 2002
the S.C held that In a suit for the specific enforcement of a
S.K. Shukla
35
Mo: 9899660723

family settlement, granting interim relief is discretion of court.

Therefore, where the court below had exercised the discretionary
power in such a manner, which cannot be said to be perverse or
irrational. The S.C cannot interfere in the matter.
S -38 of the S.R. Act tells
Perpetual Injunction when Granted:
(1)
A perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintif to prevent

the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether
expressly or by implication.
(2)
When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be
guided by the rules and provisions contained in chapter II.
S.K. Shukla
36
Mo: 9899660723

(3)
When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintifs

right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a
perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:
(a)
Where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintif:
(b)
Where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual

damage caused or likely to be caused, by the invasion
(c)
Where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not

aford adequate relief
(d)
Where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of

judicial proceedings.
Principles governing temporary injunction:
S.K. Shukla
37
Mo: 9899660723

The principles on which temporary injunctions will issue or will be

continued pending the final disposal of the suit are well settled.
These are as follows:
Party to litigation, who seeks an injunction, must satisfy the
court that these is serious question to be tried at the hearing of
the suit and every probability lies in his favour for the relief sought
for that it is prima facie in his favour. However at this stage, prima
facie case may not be confused with prima facie success, but
simply there is a serious question to be tried, if the test of prima
facie is satisfied and further courts reference is necessary without
which a right accrued in favour of the party concerned cannot be
protected from species of injury, which is known as irreparable
injury and comparative mischief which is likely to cause in the
absence of the injunction will be greater and not compensable,
thus balance of convenience also tilts in his favour.
S.K. Shukla
38
Mo: 9899660723

In Padmanabhan Vs Thomas AIR 1989 Karnataka H.C

held that A suit for injunction is an equitable remedy and the
primary requirement for grant of an equitable remedy is that the
person who claims the remedy, must come before Court with
clean hands.
S -39 of S.R. Act 1963 deals with Mandatory
Injunction: It Says
When to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to
compel, the performance of certain acts which the court is
capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion grant an
injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to
compel performance of the requisite acts.
Illustrations
S.K. Shukla
39
Mo: 9899660723

(i)
A, being Bs medical advisor, threatens to publish Bs written

communication with him, showing that B had led an immoral life.
B may obtain an injunction to restrain the publication.
(ii)
A by constructing new buildings, obstructs light, to the access and

use of which B has acquired a right under the Indian Limitation
Act, part IV. B may obtain an injunction, not only to restrain A from
going on with the buildings, but also to pull down so much of them
as obstructs Bs lights.
A mandatory injunction forbids the defendant to permit the
continuance of a wrongful state of things that already exists at the
time, when the injunction is issued. Thus purpose of mandatory
injunction is to restore a wrongful state of things to their former
rightful order.
S.K. Shukla
40
Mo: 9899660723

The relief by way of mandatory injunction is discretionary.

The court will weigh the amount of substantial mischief done or
threatened to the plaintif and compare it with that of the
defendant in the event of grant of injunction.
The relief of interlocutory & mandatory injunction is granted
generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy until
the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the
undoing those acts that have been illegally done, or the
restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from party
complaining.
Since the granting of interlocutory mandatory injunction to a
party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial, may
S.K. Shukla
41
Mo: 9899660723

cause great injustice or irreparable harm, therefore the courts

have evolved certain guidelines. These guidelines are
(1)
The plaintif has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a
higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required
for a prohibitory injunction.
(2)
It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which

normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
(3)
The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such

relief.
Q. 10-
S.K. Shukla
When injunction may be refused?
42
Mo: 9899660723

Ans.
S -41 of the S.R. Act 1963 provides the following
circumstances in which injunction cannot be granted:
(1)
Stay of pending judicial proceedings: An injunction cannot

be granted to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial
proceeding pending at the institution of the suit on which an
injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary in to
prevent the multiplicity of proceedings. (S -41 (a)
It means that a perpetual injunction cannot be granted to
stay any judicial proceedings, which is pending in other courts.
However, in an exceptional situation, to prevent a multiplicity of
proceedings, an injunction may be granted.
(2)
Stay of proceeding in Court not subordinate.: S -41 (b)

Says An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person
S.K. Shukla
43
Mo: 9899660723

either (i) from instituting or (ii) from prosecuting, any proceeding

in a court, not subordinate to that from which the injunction is
sought.
It means that an injunction can only be granted to stay
proceedings in courts which are subordinate to the court from
which the injunction is sought. Therefore no injunction can be
granted to stay proceedings before the same court from which
injunction is sought.
(3)
Restraining any person from applying to legislative

body: As per S -41 (c) An injunction cannot be granted to
restrain any person from applying to any legislative body.
(4)
Stay of proceedings in a criminal matter: As per S -41 (d)

An injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from
S.K. Shukla
44
Mo: 9899660723

either- (i) instituting (ii) prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal

matter.
However the High Court has a power to stay criminal
proceedings in the Court of a Magistrate until the disposal of civil
proceedings in which the issue of criminal proceedings is to be
decided.
(5)
No injunction order to prevent a breach of contract: As

per S -41 (e) An injunction cannot be granted to prevent the
breach of a contract, the performance of which would not be
It means that if the contract is of such a nature that the
same cannot be specifically enforced, a Court will not grant an
injunction to prevent the breach of such a contract.
S.K. Shukla
45
Mo: 9899660723

(6)
As per S -41 (f): An injunction cannot be granted to prevent on

the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear
that it will be a nuisance.
(7)
As per S -41 (i): An injunction cannot be granted when the

conduct of the plaintif or his agent has been such as to disentitle
him to the assistance of Court.
(8)
As per S -41 (j): An injunction cannot be granted when the

plaintif has A no personal interest in the matter.
S.K. Shukla
46
Mo: 9899660723


Model Q. Ans For The Specific Relief Act1963

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Q. Ans For The Specific Relief Act1963

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Q.& Ans.

for Judicial Service Main Examination

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

S -6 says If any person is dispossessed without his consent

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Here possession means legal possession which may exist

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

6 months of his dispossession, on proving his legal possession on

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Contracts when specifically enforced

When there exists no standard for ascertaining actual damage

When the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in

that the breach of contract to transfer immovable property cannot

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

that the breach of a contract to transfer movable property can be

A agrees to buy and B agrees to sell, a picture by a dead painter

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

A contracts with B to sell him a house for Rs. 1,00000/- B is

A contract for the non-performance of which compensation in

A contract, which runs into such minute or numerous details or

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

When a contract is of the nature that it is determinable i.e. a

A contract, the performance of which involves the performance of

A Contract to give maintenance.

A Contract to execute a deed every year.

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

As per S -14 (2) except as provided by the Arbitration Act 1940,

Discuss the enforceability of the following contracts:

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

A an author, contracts with B, a publisher, to complete a

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

S -10 of the S.R. Act 1963 Says The specific performance of

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

ordinary commercial contract and iron rods are easily obtainable

S -10 of S.R. Act 1963 provides that: the specific

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Thus it becomes clear that in a suit to enforce the contract

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

In Govind Laxman Vs Hari Chand, AIR 1919

In the given problem, the contract is of personal qualification/skill

Bomby H.C held

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Where the terms of the contract or the conduct of the parties at

Where the performance of the contract would involve some

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Where the defendant entered into contract under circumstances,

The court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific

The court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

circumstances in each case, the conduct of the parties and the

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

It was further observed that it is not possible or desirable to

Where damages would be sufficient compensation

Where the contract is dependent on the personal qualifications or

Where the Court is unable to supervise the performance, or

S.S. Law Academy, Civil & judicial,

Where the contract is determinable in its nature, specific

Where the contract gives the plaintif an unfair advantage over

Where the performance would involve unforeseen hardship on the

Where it is inequitable to do so.