Specific relief can be granted only for the purpose of enforcing individual civil rights and not for the mere purpose of enforcing a penal law. Therefore the provisions of this Act are applicable to civil cases adn not to criminal cases.
In Bhudeb Mookerjee v Kalachand Malik AIR 1921 Cal 129, the Court held that the word obligation in Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act may be taken to be tie or bond which contrains a person to do or suffer something. It implies a right in another person to which it is correlated and it restricts the freedom of the obligee with respect to definite acts and forbearances but in order that it may be enforced by a Court, it must be a legal obligation and not merely moral,social or religious.
In case of Dilip Kaushal v. State of M.P A.I.R. 2008 MP 324 (FB)., the Court held that the reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are granted for the purpose of the enforcing individual civil rights as is clear from Section 4 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Hence, the provisions of Specific Relief Act do not apply to right conferred on corporation or any other person under Section 307(5) of the MP Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Accordingly, injunction under Part III of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is granted to the plaintiff either to prevent a breach of an obligation in favoour of the plaintiff, or to compel the performance of an obligation in his favour. Unless therefore, there is an obligation in favour of the plaintiff which needs to be enforced, the Court cannot grant injunciton. Hence it is provided in Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that an injunciton can not granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in teh matter. The provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 do not apply to the right conferred on the corporation and any other person under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956. Under teh provisions of MP Municipal Corporation Act,1956 every building must comply with the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the byelaws made there under and hence if there is any breach of the provisions of Act of 1956 or the bye-laws made thereunder, Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956 confers a right not only on the corporation but also any other person to apply to the district Court for an injunction for removal or alteration of a building on the ground that there has been the contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1956 or the bye laws made thereunder.
Again in case Phullan Mian v Jogendra Ram A.I.R. 2006 Pat 183, it was held that only individual civil rights can be enforced by this Act. The court held that it is settled principal of law that for establishing the case of the specific performance of contract, it is essential to State adn prove that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Mere insertion of teh averments in the plaint that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is not sufficient to decree the suit for the specific performance of contract but this statement must be proved by convincing evidence eithe oral or documentary. It is the admitted position that the reply notice was received by the. plaintiff on 20.3.1984 i.e. two days prior to filing of the suit and therefore, when the plaintiff was in know of the fact that the defendant No. 1 is ready to execute the sale deed, why he did not approach defendant No. 1 to get the sale deed executed and what was the necessity of filing the suit, for specific, performance of contract so hurriedly remained unexplained. This circumstance establishes that the very purpose of filing of the suit was something different and the plaintiff's assertion regarding the readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract was merely a device. to give color to the genuineness of alleged agreement for sale. From the scrutiny of evidence available on record it is established that the necessary evidence to prove this fact that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract was lacking and the plaintiff has failed to prove the necessary requirements for obtaining decree of specific performance of contract. I, therefore, hold -that the courts below have committed grave error in decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract.
-----
Dr. Deepak Miglani
Email id:- legalbuddy@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment