Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction 1 The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38, or mandatory injunction under Section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages. Contract for Arbitration Where an agreement of reference to an arbitration has been acted and determinate in an award a suit for the cancellation of the award on the ground of fraud and collusion isnot against the tenor of Section 14 2. Contracts involving personal skill It is not possible for the court to supervise the performance of a contract which runs into minute and numerous details or is dependent upon the personal qualifications of the promisor or is otherwise of volitional nature. A in breach of the agreement is going to marry another woman. Nathu Singh the Supreme Court has held that when the plaintiff has made specific performance impossible, Section21 doesnot entitle him to seek damages. Possession and control of the defendant must therefore be clearly alleged in the plaint and proved.
No right can give protection if there is no remedy provided for its vindication. Thus the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is founded on right of manager or karta of an undivided Hindu family to alienate co-parcenery property and right of a coparcener to impeach the alienation made by the karta. It was formulated on the lines of the New York Civil Code, 1862, and help was also taken from English Equity Reports. In case of joint plaint seeking relief against the defendant, it was held that the question of interse title amongst the plaintiff is irrelevant for granting relief against defendant. Abul wahab The plaintiff who was in possession of certain property as a tenant and purchased the same property brought an action for specific performance. The mere suit for injunction cannot be converted into a suit for probation of a will where at the will is to be proved.
The Specific Relief Act, 1960 An Act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief. The mission of the Act is to provide a remedy for every wrong done. Mutation in the name of the elder brother of the family for the collection of the rent revenue does not prove hostile act against the other. It should be neither by force nor by fraud. .
Mandatory injunction: There is justification in the reasoning of the first appellate Court for having arrived at such a conclusion, since it is a case that comes to be proved that the first defendant in the suit is responsible for heaping the mud and stones inside the well when he depends the same for his benefits during 1970-71 and it is he who is responsible to remove them also without causing obstruction to the flow of water thereby hindering the possibilities of the co-owners and therefore it is only proper to have issued a mandatory injunction requiring the first defendant to remove the debris heaped inside the well, and therefore, High Court is not able to find any valid or tangible reason to cause its interference into the well considered and merited judgment passed by the lower appellate Court. Answer:- The object of Order 1, Rule 10, C. Rise in the price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale. Power to require benefit to be restored or compensation to be made when instrument is cancelled or is successfully resisted as being void or voidable 1 On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the Court may require the party to Whom such relief is granted, to restore, so far as may be any benefit which he may have received from the other party and to make any compensation to him which justice may require. The plaintiffs would, therefore, be entitled to appropriate the trees after removal and the State would not be entitled to raise any claim to the plantations. Explanation 1 Mere inadequacy of consideration, or the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of clause a or hardship within the meaning of clause b. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.
It has to be ascertained whether under the terms of the contract the parties named a specific time within which completion was to take place, really and in substance it was intended that it should be completed within a reasonable time. Where the appellant-plaintiff had proved her dispossession and title it was not necessary for the High Court to go into the question to ascertaining the date of dispossession. Sub-section 2 of this section clearly shows that delivery of possession of the property to the person specified in an order under subsection 1 was to operate as full discharge to the Government from all liabilities in respect of the property, but was not to prejudice any rights in respect thereof which any other person might be entitled by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom possession of the property was given. Possession, which is claimed to be adverse in respect of a mortgaged property, cannot affect the right of a prior mortgagee to bring the properties to sale, and adverse possession against the purchaser under that sale cannot commence prior to the date of the sale. This section is based on the extended principle what is known in English Law the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppels. The defendant, therefore, must plead and prove that after regrant, he asserted his own exclusive right, title and interest to the plaint schedule property to the knowledge of the plaintiff and he remain in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in assertion of that hostile title during the entire statutory period of 12 years without any let and hindrance and the plaintiff stood thereby.
Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. Even though a coparcener has an interest in the coparcenary property by birth, but he is not entitled to separate possession of the same unless a partition takes place. In executor contracts, a suit may be brought to compel the performance of the contract by the person in default. Taking note of the salient fact — and not other fact — that an educational institution is being run in the property in question including the disputed portion and taking note of the fact that from 12. Prohibition against: The duplication of remedies was however, avoided in the English and the Indian Laws by the operation of the following three rules: 1 Prior possession is prima facie proof of title.
In these circumstances irrespective of whether the plaintiffs proved their title to the hilt, they cannot be dispossessed by force on the basis of unilateral decision taken by the respondent-Panchayat or other authorities. For illustration, take the example of Rohit v. Nirmala Bala Dasi and Anr. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. In Nayar Service Society Ltd v.
When the court may refuse to act-Proviso to sec 34 lays down that no court shall mak any such declaration where the plaintiff being able to seek further relief , than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title 1 Where a person contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having no title or only an imperfect title, the purchaser or lessee subject to the other provisions of this Chapter , has the following rights, namely: — a If the vendor or less or has Subsequently to the contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest; b Where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating the title, and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor or less or, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such concurrence, and when a conveyance by other persons is necessary to validate the title and they are bound to convey at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such conveyance; c Where the vendor professes to sell unencumbered property, but the property is mortgaged for an amount not exceeding the purchase money and the vendor has in fact only as right to redeem it, the purchaser may compel him to redeem, the mortgage and to obtain a valid discharge, and, where necessary, also a conveyance from the mortgage; d Where the vendor or less or sues for specific performance of the contract and the suit is dismissed on the ground of his want of title or imperfect tide, the defendant has a right to a return of, his deposit, if any, with interest thereon, to his costs of the suit, and to a lien for such deposit, interest and costs on the interest, if any, of the vendor or less or in the property which is the subject-matter of the contract. Preventive relief how granted Preventive relief is granted, it the discretions of the court by injunction, temporary or perpetual. Doctrine of specific performance of contracts- A contract is an agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or not to do a particular thing, and if the person on whom this contractual obligation rests , fails to discharge it, this results to the other party averring a right either to insisit on the literal and actual performance of the contract or to obtain compensation for the non-performance of it. Section 16 c deals with a situation when the Plaintiff fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.