Latest JudgementSpecific Relief Act

Habban Shah v. Sheruddin, 2026

The judgment strengthens the principle that time-bound compliance in specific performance decrees is mandatory and substantive, not procedural.

Supreme Court of India·8 May 2026

Specific Relief Act

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

8 May 2026

Judges

Justice Pankaj Mithal & Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963

Facts of the Case

An agreement to sell agricultural land was executed on 19 October 2005.
Buyer paid ₹80,000 as advance; sale deed was to be executed by 15 March 2006.
Seller failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a suit for specific performance.
Trial court decreed the suit on 31 October 2012, directing execution of sale deed upon deposit of balance consideration within 3 months.
Buyer failed to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time.
No extension application was filed within time.
Execution proceedings were later initiated, and deposit was permitted belatedly.
High Court condoned delay and upheld execution, leading to appeal before Supreme Court.

Whether failure to deposit balance sale consideration within the time fixed in a decree renders it inexecutable?
Whether non-compliance results in automatic rescission of contract under Section 28, Specific Relief Act, 1963?
Whether filing a separate application for rescission is mandatory under Section 28?
Whether courts retain control over a decree after passing a decree for specific performance?
Whether High Court was justified in condoning delay in deposit of sale consideration?
Whether continuous readiness and willingness must subsist till execution of decree?

Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order.
Held that failure to deposit balance consideration within stipulated time renders decree inexecutable.
Held that such non-compliance results in rescission of contract under Section 28.
Held that High Court wrongly condoned delay in deposit.
Observed that decree-holder failed to show continuous readiness and willingness.
Held that readiness must continue till execution stage, not just till decree.
Held that separate application under Section 28 is not mandatory.
Held that court retains control over decree until execution or rescission.
Directed refund of part sale consideration already received.

Decree for specific performance becomes inexecutable upon failure to comply with time condition.
Contract stands rescinded under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Application under Section 28 is optional, not mandatory.
Courts retain jurisdiction over specific performance decrees till execution.
Continuous readiness and willingness is a continuing requirement.
Decree-holder lost entitlement due to non-compliance.
Refund of consideration amount ordered.

The judgment strengthens the principle that time-bound compliance in specific performance decrees is mandatory and substantive, not procedural.
It clarifies that decrees for specific performance are not final executable orders but continue under court supervision.
The Court reinforces that Section 28 operates as an equitable control mechanism, preventing misuse of decrees.
By holding that separate applications are not mandatory, the Court promotes procedural flexibility and judicial efficiency.
The ruling emphasizes that continuous readiness and willingness is a continuing legal burden, not a one-time requirement.
It prevents decree-holders from benefiting despite non-compliance with essential conditions of decree.
The decision ensures balance between equity and contractual discipline.
It also protects defendants from indefinite uncertainty caused by non-performing decree-holders.