K. S. Manjunath and Ors. v. Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil (Since Deceased) by his LRs and Ors., 2025
It emphasized that allowing unilateral termination as a defense could frustrate the objectives of specific performance under the law.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
8 November 2025
Judges
Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
Parties entered into an Agreement to Sell 354 acres of agricultural land in Basavanakoppa, Karnataka, on April 28, 2000, for ₹26.95 lakh, with an advance of ₹9.45 lakh.
-
Original landowners unilaterally terminated the agreement in 2003 after litigation delays and later sold the land to third parties in 2007, despite an injunction.
-
Patadia family, the buyers, filed a suit for specific performance, asserting readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Issues
-
Whether a party can unilaterally terminate a non-determinable agreement to sell?
-
Whether the aggrieved party must first seek a declaration challenging termination before filing a claim for specific performance?
-
The legal consequences of unilateral termination when the contract itself does not provide the right to terminate?
Held
-
Unilateral termination of a non-determinable agreement is impermissible.
-
The plaintiff may directly pursue specific performance without seeking a separate declaration.
-
Termination without contractually granted rights amounts to breach by repudiation.
Analysis
-
The Court reinforced that the law protects parties who are ready and willing to perform contracts.
-
It emphasized that allowing unilateral termination as a defense could frustrate the objectives of specific performance under the law.
-
This judgment strengthens the legal certainty in non-determinable agreements and prevents misuse by the terminating party.