ULC Specific Performance

4/26/23, 11:31 PM about:blank
1. Bijan Behari Karmakar vs . Manik Chandra Som ( 13 . 11 . 1997 - CALHC )
MANU/WB/0343/1997
Decision Date: 13.11.1997
Subject: Contract
Citing Ref:
Discussed 2
Dissented 2
Relied On 1
Act: Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 230A Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] -
Section 26(1)
Case Note: Specific Performance of Contract - Permission of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Whether
condition precedent in passing the decree--Prayer for alternative remedy of refund of earnest money,
whether debar prayer for Specific Performance--Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (XXXIII of
1976), Section 26(1).Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of a land at the
price of Rs. 14,000.00. The agreement was executed by the father of the Defendant after taking earnest
money of Rs. 2,000.00. The petition under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act,
1976 was rejected. The Board of Revenue in the appeal filed by the Appellant directed the Appellant to file
another application before the competent authority under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and
Regulation Act, 1976 mentioning therein whether their is any other land in his name or in the name of any
other person belonging to his family and the competent authority was directed to dispose of the said
application within 60 days from the Communication of the order. The Appellant alleged that the documents
lying with the Respondent and for his non-cooperation application could not be filed.Held:In view of the
decision in Reajuddin Patwari v. Syeed Abdul Jubbar the submission that the alternative relief by way of
refund of earnest money having been granted by the trial Court the appeal for specific performance was not
open to the Plaintiff not accepted by the Court.A finding that a particular person is negligent is essentially a
finding of fact and said finding having been arrived at by the first appellate court on consideration of
materials on record and that it could not show that any important peace of evidence which escaped the
notice of the Court there is no reason to interfere the said finding in the second appeal.The mere fact that
no permission under Section 26(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 has yet been
granted by the competent authority by itself could not prevent the court from passing a decree for specific
performance of contract. Procedure in such a case will be to pass a decree for specific performance of
contract with a further direction to the Defendant to make necessary application for permission within a
specified time and to further direct that within one month from the receipt of the sanction from the
competent authority the Defendant will convey to the Plaintiff the property in suit. In the event the sanction
is refused, the Plaintiff will be entitled to get an alternative remedy for refund of earnest money with
interest.
2. Highness Maharani Shantadevi vs . Savjibhai H . Patel ( 15 . 06 . 1998 - GUJHC )
MANU/GJ/0845/1998
Subject: Property
Citing Ref:
Discussed 58
Act: Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order VI
Rule 14 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order VI Rule 15 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order
VI Rule 16 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XXVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) -
Order 27 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Order XXVII Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) -
about:blank 1/8
Section 115(1) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) -
Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) - Section 99 Constitution Of India - Article 133(1)(c)
Constitution Of India - Article 141 Constitution Of India - Article 19(1)(f) Constitution Of India - Article 227
Constitution Of India - Article 276 Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act 1976 - Section 124
Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act 1976 - Section 124(2) Gujarat Town Planning And
Urban Development Act 1976 - Section 9 Gujarat Town Planning And Urban Development Act 1976 -
Section 10 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 126 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 201 Indian Contract
Act 1872 - Section 202 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 203 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 204
Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 27 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 41 Indian Contract Act 1872 -
Section 56 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 167 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 Indian Evidence
Act 1872 - Section 35 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 74 Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 92 Specific
Relief Act 1963 - Section 10 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 14 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20
Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 22 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 38 Urban Land (ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 12(2)(b) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 17(1) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 2 Urban Land
(ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 2(h) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 2(o) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20 Urban Land
(ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 21 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 21(1) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 22 Urban
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 26 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act
1976 [repealed] - Section 27 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 3 Urban
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 6(1)
Case Note: Contract - Specific performance - Section 21 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
- Appeal filed against decree of suit to declare memorandum of agreement (MOA), power of attorney (POA)
or declaration deed as illegal and null and void - Whether MOA, POA and declaration deed was illegal and
not binding on parties - Held, POA did provide that it was irrevocable and as per Clause 17 of MOA,
agreement could not be unilaterally rescinded after licencee of second part has been put into possession of
property - There was concluded contract and enforceable - There was no fact situation obtaining so as to
warrant rescinding of MOA or revoking of POA and to say that ACD had ceased to be operative - There was
nothing on record to showed that documents were got executed by playing any fraud - There was
continuous readiness and willingness on part of Respondent and he could not be said to have failed to
discharge his obligations under contract - Documents were available and were in possession of parties and
had been produced and Court had also permitted both sides to take xerox copies of all documents - Decree
required to modify in terms that Respondent entitled to enforce specific performance as granted by Trial
Court subject to condition of final declaration under Section 21 of Act being issued with regard to land by
Respondents in accordance with law - Appeal partly allowed.[14],[21],[22],[25],[37],[54] and[64]
3. Edupuganti Bala Veera Raghavaiah vs . Mohd . Imthiazuddin and Ors . ( 25 . 03 . 1997 -

APHC )
MANU/AP/0426/1997
Subject: Civil
Citing Ref:
Discussed 4
Mentioned 3
Act: Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20 Urban Land (ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20(1)(b)
Case Note: Civil - Suit for specific performance - Section 20 of Urban Land Ceilings Act - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - Appellant filed suit or specific performance of a contract of sale against Respondents which was
decreed - On appeal, court reversed judgment and decree of trial Judge taking view that intention of parties
was that Defendants should apply for exemption under Section 20 of the Act and that as request for
exemption was rejected by Government, Defendants were bound to return advance money with interest to
Appellant/plaintiff and therefore, there was no further obligation on part of Defendants to keep contract
alive - Appellant challenged orders of State govt. regretting exemption to Defendants on ground it was
about:blank 2/8
vitiated - Held, under Section 20 of the Act, over-riding power is conferred on State govt. to grant
exemption to any person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit either on ground of public interest or
undue hardship - State Government is not party to suit and, therefore, validity of order rejecting exemption
cannot be gone into in appeal - Moreover, reason for rejecting request is that there is no hardship involved
- It cannot, therefore, be said that order, is vitiated either on ground that it is bereft of reasons or due to
non- application of mind - Obligation to obtain permission from Urban Land Ceiling Authority was on
Defendants and if they fail within two months from date of agreement to obtain such permission, they were
liable to return advance - Government has not cancelled order passed by them - So long as order is not
declared invalid by any competent Court, it necessarily means that it is holding field and in fact situation,
order has attained finality - Appellant is entitled to money decree only as was rightly held by trial court -
Appeal dismissed.
4. Abdul Jaleel and Ors . vs . Denyl Winston Ferries and Ors . ( 21 . 11 . 2013 - APHC )
MANU/AP/3567/2013
Subject: Contract
Subject: Property
Act: Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 21 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 22
Case Note: Contract - Specific performance - Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 - Present
appeal filed for challenging order whereby, suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, was
disallowed - Whether Appellant was entitled for relief of specific performance - Held, materials on record
that Respondent was disabled from executing sale deed, on account of extension of provisions of Act to
concerned village - Once suit land was covered by provisions of Act, then right or freedom of Appellant to
execute sale deed gets substantially restricted - Respondent could execute sale deed, only after obtaining
permission from competent authority - Competent authority had rejected application of Respondent for
permission to alienate land - Thus, Appellant could not be said to be entitled for relief of specific
performance, however benefits were extended proportionate to amount of advance paid by Appellant -
Appeal partly allowed.
Disposition: Appeal Partly Allowed
5. Sathya Laboratories vs . A . L . Gangadhar Rao ( 03 . 12 . 2015 - SC )
MANU/SC/1530/2015
Subject: Land Acquisition
Act: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 [Repealed] - Section 2 Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act 1976 [Repealed] - Section 20 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 [Repealed] -
Section 26 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 [Repealed] - Section 26(2)
Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2008 by the High Court of Karnataka in Review
Petition No. 245/2002 (MANU/KA/1027/2008)
Case Note: Land Acquisition - Dismissal of suit - Specific performance - Section 20 of Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulations) Act, 1976 - Plaintiff/Appellant's suit for specific performance had been dismissed by
Courts below - High Court also affirmed decree of eviction passed against Appellant - Hence, present appeal
- Whether specific performance of agreement was rightly refused primarily on ground that requisite
permission as contemplated in agreement was not granted by Urban Land Ceiling Authority. Facts: The
Plaintiff/Appellant's suit for specific performance had been dismissed by the Trial Court as well as by the
High Court. The High Court also affirmed the decree of eviction passed against the Appellant by the Trial
Court. The specific performance of the agreement was refused primarily on the ground that requisite
permission as contemplated in the agreement was not granted by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. Held:
(i) The suit land was exempted from the provisions of Part-III of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations)
about:blank 3/8
Act, 1976, by order of the State Government. The said order, however, imposed a specific requirement of
obtaining permission from the State Government for transfer of the land in question. Such permission was
required to be obtained by the vendor i.e. Defendant/Respondent. [7] (ii) Exemption under Section 20 of
the Act virtually takes the land exempted outside the purview of the Act. [8] (iii) The vendor had applied to
the competent authority for permission to sell the land which exercise was not at all necessary in view of
the fact that the land stood exempted under Section 20 by Government Order. [11] (iv) The application was
refused by the competent authority on the ground that the land was surplus land. What really was required
to be done by the vendor was to seek permission from the State Government in terms of the conditions
mentioned in the Government Order. [12] (v) At the relevant point of time no permission from the
competent authority under the Act was required as the land stood exempted under Section 20 of the Act.
The requirement was one of obtaining permission for sale from the State Government in terms of the
Government Order. [13] (vi) It was just and equitable to grant the relief of specific performance as prayed
for by the Plaintiff in the suit. The decree of dismissal as passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court was reversed. The suit of the Plaintiff was decreed subject to the condition that the
Defendant/Respondent would execute the required sale-deed only upon payment of an additional amount.
[14]
Disposition: Appeal Allowed
6. Ferrodous Estates ( Pvt . ) Ltd . vs . P . Gopirathnam ( Dead ) and Ors . ( 12 . 10 . 2020 - SC )
MANU/SC/0750/2020
Subject: Contract
Citing Ref:
Discussed 23
Distinguished 1
Mentioned 30
Act: Bihar Tenancy Act 1885 - Section 26N Bihar Tenancy Act 1885 - Section 26(O) Bihar Tenancy
Amendment Act 1934 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC)
General Clauses Act 1897 - Section 6 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 23 Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Punjab
Relief Of Indebtedness Act 1934 - Section 5 Punjab Relief Of Indebtedness Act 1934 - Section 6 Specific
Relief (Amendment) Act 2018 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20
Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20(1) Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20(2) Tamil Nadu Urban Land
(Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section
4 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 5 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 5(3) Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 6
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 7 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 11 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 11(1)
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 11(3) Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling
And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 11(4) Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 -
Section 17 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 19 Tamil Nadu Urban Land
(ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 21 Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 -
Section 21(1) Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1978 - Section 23 Land Acquisition Act
1894 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 - Section 20 Usurious Loans Act 1918 - Section 3
Case Note: Civil - Suit for Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Vacant land (Suit Property)-Land in
excess of ceiling limit - Embargo of Section 5(3) read with Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling
Act, 1978 - Respondent failed to obtain due permissions from concerned authorities (land ceiling)- Suit
decreed by Ld. Singh Judge with direction to Respondents toexecute sale deed- Appeal preferred before
Division Bench which on several questions raised Reference - Thereafter case was remanded back to Ld.
Single Judge and against came up in appeal - Division Bench vide impugned judgment set aside the
findings of Ld. Single Judge - Hence, the present appeal - Whether Division Bench rightly applied the law
laid in the background of facts and thereby holding Appellant not entitled to decree of Specific
Performance? Facts: The present appeal is in reference to exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under
Section 20 of the Specific Performance Act. In the present matter, an agreement to sell was executed
between Appellant Company and Respondents. As per the agreement, Respondents were required to obtain
about:blank 4/8
due permission from land ceiling authorities pertaining to sale of vacant land. The Respondents failed to
perform their part of obligations, however resisted claims of Appellant on the ground of short payment. Ld.
Single Judge decreed the suit which however was reversed by the Division bench in appeal. The Division
bench vide impugned judgment held Appellant as not entitled to decree of specific performance on the
ground of claim being liable to hit by provisions of Sections 5(3) and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling
Act. Hence, the present appeal. Held, while allowing the appeal: i. A suit for specific performance filed
within limitation cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or laches. However, an exception to this
Rule is where immovable property is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is
found that owing to some default on the part of the Plaintiff, the sale could not take place within the
stipulated time. Once a suit for specific performance has been filed, any delay as a result of the court
process cannot be put against the Plaintiff as a matter of law in decreeing specific performance. However, it
is within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to the facts of each case, as to whether some
additional amount ought or ought not to be paid by the Plaintiff once a decree of specific performance is
passed in its favour, even at the appellate stage. [31] ii. The Defendants were held to have taken up
dishonest pleas and also held to have been in breach of a solemn agreement in which they were to obtain
the Urban Land Ceiling permission which, if not obtained, would, under the agreement itself, not stand in
the way of the specific performance of the agreement between the parties. He who asks for equity must do
equity. Given the conduct of the Defendants in this case, as contrasted with the conduct of the Appellant
who is ready and willing throughout to perform its part of the bargain, present is a fit case in which the
Division Bench judgment should be set aside. As a result, the decree passed by the Single Judge is
restored. Since the Appellant itself offered a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores to the Division Bench, it must be made
to pay this amount to the Respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment. [32]
iii. Appeal allowed[33]
7. Bhaskarjyoti Sarma and Ors . vs . State of Assam and Ors . ( 21 . 09 . 2010 - GUHC )
MANU/GH/0624/2010
Subject: Property
Citing Ref:
Discussed 7
Mentioned 1
Act: Constitution Of India - Article 252 General Clauses Act 1897 - Section 6 General Clauses Act 1897 -
Section 6(c) Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 297 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] -
Section 10 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10(1) Urban Land (ceiling
And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10(3) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 10(5) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10(6) Urban
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 7 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 8 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 9 Urban Land
(ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 8(3) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act
1999 - Section 3 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 - Section 3(2) Urban Land (ceiling
And Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 - Section 3(2)(a) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act 1999 -
Section 4
Case Note: Land Acquisition - Restoration of Possession - Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 - Single Judge dismissed Petition filed by
Appellant praying for restoration of possession of land following adoption of 1999 Act by State of Assam
and interference with allotment of to Respondent No. 6 - Hence, this Appeal - Whether, Appellant was
entitled for restoration of possession in view of adoption of the Repealing Act, 1999 - Held, competent
authority after publication of notice under Section 10(3) of the 1976 Act never issued any notice Section
10(5) of 1976 Act either to predecessor-in-interest or on his death to Appellants directing him or them to
surrender or deliver possession of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit - Therefore, possession of Appellants
in respect of land was always with them until their dispossession - Deletion of name of recorded pattadar
from Revenue records did not mean that recorded pattadar was not in possession of land in question - No
supporting document was produced to show that service of notice was duly effected - Such unilateral taking
over of possession was illegal and unauthorized - Thus, Appellants were entitled to restoration of land,
about:blank 5/8
parcel of acquired vacant land in excess of ceiling limit and vested in State Government under Section 3(2)
(a) of the Repealing Act, 1999 - Impugned judgment and order of Single Judge was set aside - Appeal
allowed. Ratio Decidendi"Order passed by government authority without compliance of mandatory provision
is void ab initio."
8. M . Meenakshi and Ors . vs . Metadin Agarwal ( D ) by Lrs . and Ors . ( 29 . 08 . 2006 - SC )
MANU/SC/8453/2006
Subject: Property
Subject: Contract
Citing Ref:
Discussed 1
Dissented 2
Distinguished 2
Act: Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 20 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] -
Section 10 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20 Urban Land (ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 26 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] -
Section 9
Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated 10.9.2003 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in L.P.A. No. 168/96
Case Note: (1) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20--Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976--
Section 26--Suit for specific performance of contract--Land in question subject-matter of urban land ceiling
proceedings -- Application under Section 26 of Ceiling Act for permission to sell land--Rejected by
competent authority--Trial court rejected prayer for specific performance of contract--And defendant
directed to refund amount of advance and also to pay damages with interest--Single Judge of High Court
affirmed judgment of trial court--But Division Bench on L.P.A. decreed suit--Whether Division Bench
justified? Held, "no"--Division Bench not only went into legality of order passed by competent authority
under Ceiling Act--But also made comment on alleged personal involvement therein--High Court had no
jurisdiction to make such comments--And pass, strictures against competent authority--Entire approach of
Division Bench--Unsound in law--Impugned judgment set aside. # (2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section
20--Suit for specific performance of contract--Grant of specific performance--Discretion of court--Superior
courts would not ordinarily interfere with discretionary jurisdiction exercised by courts below. # (3) Void
order--Required to be set aside by competent court of law - As order may be void in respect of one person-
-But may be valid in respect of other -- Void order necessarily not non-est--Order cannot be declared void
in collateral proceeding.
9. Cevera Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd . vs . Charan Singh and Ors . ( 15 . 12 . 2004 - ALLHC )
MANU/UP/1616/2004
about:blank 6/8
Subject: Contract
Subject: Civil
Citing Ref:
Discussed 14
Act: Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act 1947 - Section 31 Constitution
Of India - Article 252 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 23 Indian Contract Act 1872 - Section 63 Specific
Relief Act 1963 - Section 20 Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 21 Transfer Of Property Act 1882 - Section 54
Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation)
Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10(1) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section
10(3) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 2(d) Urban Land (ceiling And
Section 20(1) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 21 Urban Land (ceiling
And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 3 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] -
Section 42 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 5(3) Urban Land (ceiling And
Section 8(3)
Case Note: Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16 and 20--Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(since repealed)--Sections 5 (3), 10 (1), 20 and 21--Suit for specific performance of contract for sale of
urban land :# (1) Whether agreement to sell stipulating that sale deed would be executed after obtaining
permission from ceiling authorities was in contravention of Section 5 (3) of Ceiling Act?--Held, "no".#AIR
1984 Guj 145 (FB) and AIR 2004 Mad 18, relied on.# (2) Whether suit for specific performance barred by
limitation?--Held, "no"--Agreement of sale executed on 2.11.1985--Has to be performed by 1.5.1987 after
obtaining permission under Ceiling Act and clearance from income-tax department--No permission under
Ceiling Act obtained within one and half years--Agreement repudiated by defendant by notice dated
2.8.1988--Courts below rightly treated this date as starting point of limitation--Suit filed on 4.12.1990--
Was within three years of this date and was within time.#1997 (2) AWC 1022 (SC),distinguished# (3)
Some delay on part of plaintiff in instituting suit--Escalation of price of land during this period--Some
prejudice caused to defendant--On repeal of Ceiling Act, property becoming free from ceiling--That
unexpected bounty to be shared by parties--However, delay in trial of suit cannot be ground to refuse relief
of specific performance--Defendants obtaining major part of consideration settled--Also enjoying property
for last 20 years--Hence, suit for specific performance decreed on condition that Rs. 50 lakhs would be paid
by plaintiffs to defendants in addition to amount already paid--Decrees of courts below set aside.
10. Shah Jitendra Nanalal vs . Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai ( 10 . 04 . 1984 - GUJHC )
MANU/GJ/0076/1984
Subject: Property
Citing Ref:
Discussed 4
Act: Constitution Of India - Article 133(1)(a) Constitution Of India - Article 252 Urban Land (ceiling And
Section 10(1) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 10(3) Urban Land (ceiling
And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 2(q) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976
[repealed] - Section 20 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20(1) Urban
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20(1)(b) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation)
Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 20(l) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 21
Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 27 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation)
Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 4 Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 5 Urban
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 5(3) Urban Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act
Land (ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 [repealed] - Section 8
about:blank 7/8
Case Note: Property - conditional decree - Sections 5 (3) and 20 (1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 and Sections 10 and 12 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 - whether conditional decree for
specific performance be passed in view of provision for exemption in Section 20 (1) (b) - decree for specific
performance be passed with such alternative remedies required in situation where decree may become
inoperative - such decree be made conditional in case exemption under Section 20 operating - held,
conditional decree for specific performance subject to exemption obtained under Section 20 permissible.
about:blank 8/8

ULC Specific Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ULC Specific Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/26/23, 11:31 PM about:blank

1. Bijan Behari Karmakar vs . Manik Chandra Som ( 13 . 11 . 1997 - CALHC )

Decision Date: 13.11.1997

2. Highness Maharani Shantadevi vs . Savjibhai H . Patel ( 15 . 06 . 1998 - GUJHC )

Decision Date: 15.06.1998

3. Edupuganti Bala Veera Raghavaiah vs . Mohd . Imthiazuddin and Ors . ( 25 . 03 . 1997 -

Decision Date: 25.03.1997

Decision Date: 21.11.2013

Disposition: Appeal Partly Allowed

5. Sathya Laboratories vs . A . L . Gangadhar Rao ( 03 . 12 . 2015 - SC )

Decision Date: 03.12.2015

Subject: Land Acquisition

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

6. Ferrodous Estates ( Pvt . ) Ltd . vs . P . Gopirathnam ( Dead ) and Ors . ( 12 . 10 . 2020 - SC )

Decision Date: 12.10.2020

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Decision Date: 21.09.2010

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

8. M . Meenakshi and Ors . vs . Metadin Agarwal ( D ) by Lrs . and Ors . ( 29 . 08 . 2006 - SC )

Decision Date: 29.08.2006

Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Decision Date: 15.12.2004

10. Shah Jitendra Nanalal vs . Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai ( 10 . 04 . 1984 - GUJHC )

Decision Date: 10.04.1984

You might also like