Statutory requirements laid down under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which shall be considered before granting relief of Specific Performance;

 1. Whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property;

 2. Whether the Plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; (This condition is no more required under amended Law).

3. Whether the Plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract;

4. Whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; (Though this a determining factors since remedy was discretionary yet if continues to be valid)

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely refund of earnest money, etc. and if so, on what grounds.

 Acelegal Analysis:

 1. The Apex Court has elucidated the condition for claiming Specific Performance. These Conditions are laid down as per the pre-amended law of specific performance which is discretionary in nature. The law of Specific Relief has been amended which now provide that relief of specific performance is to be granted unless the party claiming is itself a defaulter. Hence the discretionary nature of suit of Specific Performance stands diluted. Although the condition as laid down by SC in this decision would still guide in future cases under amended law.    

2. The parties to Contract can claim for Specific relief only if they have performed there part or are willing to perform there part as agreed in Contract between parties. This aspect remains even in the amended law.

Facts of the case:

A Civil Suit was filed before the Additional District Judge, Harda, Madhya Pradesh (the “District Court”) by the Appellant against the Respondents seeking specific performance of a contract with respect to the suit land. Upon hearing parties to suit on 31^st August, 2000 the said Suit was dismissed by said District Court on the ground that the Appellant had failed to aver and prove that he was ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which were to be performed by him.

Appellant being aggrieved by the District Court Dismissal Order filed First Appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court affirmed the District Court Dismissal Order and consequently dismissed the First Appeal. Thereafter, the Appellant filed Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the High Court Order claiming Specific Performance of Contract.

Issue before Supreme Court :

1. Whether the District Court and High Court have followed the statutory requirements in [Section 16(c), Section 20, Section 21, Section 22 and Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Forms 47 and 48 of Appendix A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908].

2. What are the Conditions and Questions to be considered before grating the relief of Specific Performance.

Supreme Court Verdict:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the District Court and High Court have gone into these questions and have recorded categorical finding against the Appellant;

(i) That since the Appellant was neither ready and nor willing to perform his part of Contract Appellant is not entitled to claim the relief of Specific Performance of Contract against the Respondent in relation to said suit land.

(ii) The Appellant was not entitled to claim any refund of earnest money because it was liable to be adjusted as agreed between parties to the said suit in contract.