Suit for specific performance – Conduct of the plaintiff – High court denied relief stating that appellants failed to plead and prove how they were put in possession of a part of the property – Details about the manner in which possession was given to the Appellants not being pleaded cannot be a ground to deny relief – The contention of the Appellants before the High Court was that the Respondents should demolish the super structure and hand over vacant possession of the land – High Court observed that the Appellants who were in possession of a part of the property cannot make such an inane plea – According to the terms of the agreement, the Respondents had to hand over vacant possession of the land and that no steps were taken to demolish the structure – By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the Appellants can be denied relief on this account.

(2021-2)202 PLR 214 (SC) = 2021 SCeJ 426

Suit for Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – 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 – 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, we think this is a fit case – Where decree passed be restored.

(2020-4)200 PLR 757 (S.C.)(S.N.) = 2020 SCeJ 1982