Surinder Kaur (D) Thr. LR. v. Bahadur Singh (D) Thr. LRs.
Background
In 1964, the predecessor of the appellants agreed to sell agricultural land to the predecessor of the respondent for Rs. 5,605, with possession handed over immediately but the sale deed to be registered later, subject to a pending High Court appeal. The agreement required the buyer to pay "customary rent" to the seller if the sale deed was delayed beyond a year. The buyer took possession but did not pay any rent for 13 years, yet later sued for specific performance of the sale agreement.
Decision Breakdown
The central legal question was whether a buyer (vendee) who fails to perform his own promise under a contract can still claim the discretionary remedy of specific performance of that same contract. The Supreme Court held that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief, and under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, a court can refuse it where the circumstances make it inequitable to enforce, or where the plaintiff caused undue hardship through his own conduct. Since the buyer had enjoyed possession of the land for 13 years (and the dispute spanned 55 years) without paying the agreed rent, and had even denied liability to pay it, the Court found he had not acted equitably and had forfeited his right to specific performance. It allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' decrees, dismissed the suit for specific performance, and also denied the alternative claim for refund given the decades of free use of the land.
Lesson Learnt
A party seeking the discretionary remedy of specific performance must also have faithfully performed their own obligations under the contract; courts can deny this relief, even years later, to a party whose own conduct has been inequitable.