Latest JudgementSpecific Relief Act
Sangita Sinha v. Bhawana Bhardwaj and Ors., 2025
The Supreme Court ruled that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell is not maintainable without a prayer for declaratory relief challenging the cancellation of the agreement.
Supreme Court of India·7 April 2025
Specific Relief Act
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
7 April 2025
Judges
Justices Dipankar Datta ⦁ Justice Manmohan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- The seller (respondent) cancelled the agreement to sell made with the buyer (petitioner) and returned the earnest money deposit via demand drafts. The buyer filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, without challenging the validity of the cancellation.
- During the suit, the buyer encashed the demand drafts, but did not seek a declaratory relief challenging the cancellation of the agreement.
- The Trial Court and High Court ruled in favor of the buyer, allowing the suit for specific performance. The seller then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell can be maintained without seeking a declaratory relief challenging the validity of the cancellation of the agreement?
- Whether the suit was maintainable despite the cancellation of the agreement by the seller before the suit was filed?
Held
- The Court held that the suit for specific performance filed by the buyer was not maintainable because it did not include a prayer for declaratory relief challenging the seller's cancellation of the agreement.
- The Court referred to a precedent (I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani) to assert that the termination of the agreement must be set aside for the suit to be maintainable.
- The Court further observed that the trial court had erred by not considering the issue of maintainability and clarified that appellate courts can examine whether the jurisdictional facts for granting the relief existed.
Analysis
- Declaratory Relief: The Supreme Court clarified that in specific performance suits, declaratory relief is crucial to challenge the termination of the contract. Without this, the suit cannot be sustained because the agreement to sell must be considered valid and subsisting.
- Jurisdictional Fact: The Court discussed the importance of jurisdictional facts (validity of the agreement) for granting relief. Without setting aside the cancellation, the buyer’s suit for specific performance was not legally viable.
- Precedent: The Court reinforced the ruling in the I.S. Sikandar case, emphasizing that a prayer for declaratory relief is essential to challenge the termination of an agreement.