1. Abstract:

The Specific Relief Act of 1963 (hereinafter may also be referred to as the "Act") is a significant legislative measure in the Indian civil law system, designed to complement the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by providing equitable remedies where monetary compensation is inadequate.

The Act does not define specific performance; however, the principle, which is one of equity, is that a party can be compelled to perform their contractual obligations first rather than being awarded damages. Specific performance is the exact delivery of a contractual obligation, especially in situations where the subject matter of the contract is considered to be very unique or without substitutes.

The Act also facilitated the division of specific remedies into those that may be used to protect civil rights and those that are used for the prevention of civil wrongs. It authorises courts to grant reliefs such as specific performance of contracts, recovery of possession of property, rectification or cancellation of instruments, rescission of contracts, declaratory decrees, and injunctions.

A judicial order for the specific performance of one party to a contract is still regarded as a discretionary and equitable remedy and hence is not available as a matter of right. Courts are thus very careful about weighing the factors and considering the facts and circumstances of a case before them, such as whether a valid contract was formed, the behaviour of the parties, readiness and willingness to perform, and whether time is the essence of the contract.

The Act also specifies procedural components like limitation periods and court fees, which make the enforcement of rights orderly and uniform. Additionally, only certain types of contracts, specifically contracts of personal service which by nature depend on the personal skill, choice or discretion of the individual, are excluded from the court's power to grant specific performance under section 14 of the act.

Courts have, on numerous occasions, affirmed that such contracts cannot be ordered by the court for specific enforcement. The Specific Relief Act, 1963, as a whole, goes a long way in accomplishing the double task of, on the one hand, upholding the sanctity of contracts and, on the other, balancing equity with practical enforceability.

2. Introduction:

The Specific Relief Act of 1963 does not define the phrase “Specific Performance.” The Oxford Dictionary defines “Specific Performance” as carrying out a contractual obligation as directed in circumstances where monetary compensation in the form of damages would not be sufficient. For certain types of relief, the Law of Certain Relief has been passed. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is supplemented by a procedural statute known as the statute of Specific Relief. The English Courts have recognised particular relief principles, which are founded on common law court customs and procedures.

A remedy that tries to achieve exact duty fulfilment is known as specific relief. In 1963, the Specific Relief Act of 1963 took effect, replacing the earlier Specific Relief Act of 1877. The actual purpose of this Act is to grant the party seeking specific remedies the ability to protect a civil right or to stop a civil wrong. Civil injury refers to a breach of duty. A type of judicial remedy is specific relief. This is just a remedy.

3. Specific Performance of Contract:

The remedy offered by the equity system and equity courts is specific performance. It also refers to keeping a promise made to a third party. Because it is an optional relief, neither party may assert that they are entitled to it by right. The party seeking this remedy must persuade the court that it has no other choice but to grant it. This post also includes a structure that is appropriate for a particular performance.

When one party enters into a contract with another to carry out some obligation, that party may seek specific performance as a remedy. Later, one party breaks the agreement and refuses to carry it out. Here, the party that is having an effect has the right to go before a court with jurisdiction over the matter and ask the court to specifically perform the contract as previously agreed by the parties.

4. The Specific Relief Act:

A law passed by the Indian Parliament in 1963, called the Specific Relief Act, offers remedies to those whose civil or commercial rights have been infringed. This Act of 1877 replaced the prior one. In accordance with the Specific Relief Act's guidelines, a court may give the following types of remedies:

• Specific Contract Performance

• Recovery of Possession of Property

• Rectification or Cancellation of Equipment

• Rescission of Contracts

• Declaratory Decrees

• Injunction

4.i. Components of a Suit for a Specific Performance:

When analysing a specific performance suit, the court takes into account the following factors. These are listed below:

• Valid Contract

• Unregistered agreement of sale

• Conduct of the parties

• Readiness and willingness of the parties

• Time is the essence of a contract

• Adding parties in a specific performance suit

4.ii. Limitation Period:

The statute of limitations for a lawsuit for particular performance of a contract is three years, and it begins to run when the plaintiff receives notice that performance is being withheld, assuming there is no definite date for performance.

4.iii. Court Fees:

Section 7 (x) of The Court Fees Act, 1870 sternly stipulates that;

In suits for specific performance:

• Of a contract of sale: according to the amount of the consideration,

• Of a contract of mortgage: according to the amount agreed to be secured,

• Of a contract of lease: according to the aggregate amount of the fine or premium (if any) and of the rent agreed to be paid during the first year of the term,

• Of an award: according to the amount or value of the property in dispute.

5. Kinds of Remedies in a Suit for Specific Relief

Different kinds of remedies may be involved in a suit for specific relief, depending on the nature of the dispute:

1. Recovery of Possession of Property:

1. This remedy gives the right to a person who is lawfully entitled to get back a movable or immovable property, to take possession of it from the person who has wrongfully taken or is retaining the possession, usually, on the ground of ownership or prior possession.

2. Specific Performance of Contracts:

1. This means a court instruction to a party to perform the contract exactly as agreed. Such a remedy is typically used for unique property or real estate cases where the value of monetary damages is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of the injured party.

3. Rectification of Instruments:

1. This relief permits the court to change the written instruments like contracts, deeds, etc., when, because of fraud or mistake, they do not reflect the real intention and agreement of the parties involved.

4. Rescission of Contracts:

1. This remedy works like a contract annulment, whereby the contract is undone, and both parties are put in the same position as before they entered the impugned agreement.

5. Cancellation of Instruments:

1. Under this relief, the court declares a document, such as a void or voidable agreement or will, to be legally of no effect and orders that it be delivered up and cancelled.

6. Declaratory Decrees:

1. By this means, the court makes a formal determination and declaration of the legal rights, status or situation of the parties, even though no immediate action or enforcement is made, for example, the declaration of the rightful ownership of the property.

7. Injunctions (Preventive Relief):

1. They are court orders either prohibiting a person from doing a particular act (prohibitory injunction) or requiring them to do a particular act (mandatory injunction). Such injunctions may be only for a short time or permanent, depending on the facts of the case.

6. Case Laws:

1. N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115

 i. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff throughout the contract period are the most essential conditions for granting specific performance.

2. K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1

 ii. Specific performance is discretionary, and delay or inequitable conduct can justify refusal of relief even when the contract is valid.

3. Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519

iii. Time is not ordinarily the essence of contracts for the sale of immovable property unless expressly or impliedly made so.

4. Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18

iv. Modern commercial realities require courts to respect time stipulations more strictly in specific performance suits.

5. Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, (1976) 2 SCC 58

 v. Contracts of personal service are not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, except in rare cases.

7. Conclusion:

Contracts form the foundation of practically all commercial relationships. Contracts govern every trade. Contracts lock up property, whether it is owned by businesses or people. For instance, investments such as money in banks and other types of investments are legally obligated. Contracts, therefore, represent modern wealth. They are inherently revered. Additionally, a specific contract is not a stand-alone transaction. It frequently serves as a connector between a number of contracts. The economy and social life could be severely disrupted by a single failure. Therefore, contracts must be upheld. However, the only way the law of contracts can enforce a contract is by paying damages to an injured party. Private contracts of personal service are not enforceable under the law, as evidenced by a reading of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The court also ruled that personal service contracts were unenforceable, citing Section 14 (1) (b) of the Specific Relief Act of 1963.

According to various judgments and judicial pronouncements, a court will not issue an order specifically enforcing a contract of personal service. When the implementation of personal service under a contract is dependent on the parties’ volition, or when the acts stipulated required specialized expertise, skill, potential, encounter, or the exercise of the verdict, discretion, integrity, and similar personal qualities, in short, whenever a performance following the spirit of the contract is dependent on the contracting party’s will and capacity.

8. References:

• The Specific Relief Act, 1963, No. 47 of 1963, §§ 10–14, 15–16, 26–31, 34–35, 36–42 (India).

• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5 of 1908, § 9, Order VII Rule 7, Order XXXIX Rules 1–2 (India).

• The Limitation Act, 1963, No. 36 of 1963, art. 54 (India).

• The Court Fees Act, 1870, No. 7 of 1870, § 7(x) (India).

• The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9 of 1872, §§ 10, 14, 23, 37, 39, 73 (India).

• Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief (11th ed., Eastern Book Company).

• Mulla, The Specific Relief Act (LexisNexis).

• Pollock & Mulla, The Indian Contract Act (LexisNexis).

• C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure (8th ed., Eastern Book Company).

• Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure (LexisNexis).

• R.K. Bangia, Law of Contracts (Allahabad Law Agency).

• Oxford English Dictionary, entry on “Specific Performance.”

• Bryan A. Garner (ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed., Thomson Reuters), entries on “Specific Performance,” “Equitable Remedy,” and “Injunction.”

• N.P. Thirugnanam v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115

• K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1

• Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, (1993) 1 SCC 519

• Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, (2011) 12 SCC 18

• Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, (1976) 2 SCC 58

Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. ClearLaw.online does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, ClearLaw.online, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.