Specific Relief Act:- A party must take specific steps to remedy a contract breach when it results in loss and damages due to the actions of another party. The Specific Relief Act of 1963, which addresses specific remedies in various circumstances, provides these specific acts or reliefs.
This act clarifies and updates the law governing specific categories of Special Relief. The previous act from 1877 has been replaced by this one. “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”—where there is right, there is remedy—is the Special Relief Act’s stated goal. No rights are granted by the Act on its own. It simply offers a precise solution to address the infringement of a legal right.
What is Specific Performance?
The term “specific performance,” as used in the Act, self-describes. It implies to expressly carry out an act in accordance with a contract and commands the parties to expressly carry out their stated obligations in order to complete the terms and conditions of a contract.
As a result, if one party to a contract suffers loss as a result of the other party’s failure to perform, the aggrieved party may initiate a lawsuit for particular performance.
One of a contract’s most important and integral components is performance. A party who neglects, rejects, or fails specifically to perform their end of a contract may seek particular performance as a remedy. Contract performance is also influenced by the idea of partial performance.
In simple terms, if a person is required by contract to carry out a specific conduct, they can’t forget to do it. In the event of failure, the opposite party may file a lawsuit to enforce the contract. When the damages are insufficient to afford a sufficient remedy, specific performance orders are made.
This kind of ruling is made at the discretion of the court after taking all relevant facts into account.
Conditions OF THE ACT
Important definitions in Section 2
- Important definitions covered in Section 2 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963 are crucial to understanding this Act.
- Obligations, or duties imposed by the law or a legal entity, are covered in Section 2(a).
- In Section 2(b), the settlement, which refers to the delivery of the movable or immovable property to their succeeding interests upon an agreed-upon disposition, is discussed.
- The term “trust” is discussed in Section 2(c), and it is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act of 1882.
- In Section 2(d), the term “trustee” refers to the person who is in charge of the property.
Section 4: Only civil individual rights are enforced
According to this clause, the Act only provides special remedy for the defence of individual rights. It does not apply to the execution of criminal legislation. By establishing the substantive nature of that fact, it establishes the type of reliefs that are given to people whose civil rights have been violated.
Recovery of the possession of immovable property
The remedies that a person has when his property is disposed of are described in Section 5. The recovery method specified by the Code of Civil method, 1908 may be used by a person who has lost control of property or who wishes to reclaim property that is rightfully his. In this case, the individual must establish his ownership of the property.
Regaining possession of movable property
According to Section 7, if someone wants to regain control of movable property, they can do so by following the steps outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
A trustee may file a lawsuit against the beneficial interest he was entitled to, according to section 7’s additional two subclauses, and another subclause explains that the presence of a special right granted to the plaintiff can also serve as evidence of ownership of the property, which is sufficient to file a lawsuit.
The following are section 7’s key essentials:-
- The presence of moveable property that can be delivered or disposed of is required.
- The property in question must be in the possession of the party filing the lawsuit.
- There could be a temporary or exceptional entitlement to the property.
A relief from the court that specifies that the party should not carry out specific acts for which the relief shall be ordered is referred to as preventive relief. Preventive relief forbids a party from performing any act. Injunctions may be used to impose these reliefs.
Injunctions in Specific Relief Act:-
An injunction is a clear directive that forbids a party from taking any action. According to the Specific Relief Act of 1963, injunctions can be either temporary, perpetual, or required. Sections 36 through 44 discuss injunctions.
Types of Injunctions:-
There are 3 kinds of Injunctions:
- Temporary Injunctions
- Perpetual Injunctions
- Mandatory Injunctions
Section 37 Temporary and Perpetual Injunction:-
According to the provisions of this section, a permanent injunction may only be issued by decree following a hearing and based on the merits of the case. So, in order to acquire a permanent injunction, a regular lawsuit must be launched, in which the right sought is evaluated on its merits, and in which the injunction is ultimately granted through a decision.
Unlike a temporary injunction, a permanent injunction determines an individual’s rights. A permanent injunction totally prohibits the defendant from asserting a right that would conflict with the plaintiff’s rights.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs temporary injunctions, which are those that are to last until a specific date or until further order of the court. They may be obtained at any stage of a lawsuit.
Section 39: Mandatory Injunctions:
The goal of a mandatory injunction is to return the plaintiff to the pre-existing situation, not to establish a new one. It is a very special cure, and it should never be used unless the greatest precautions are taken to minimise waste and injustice.
There are two factors that need to be considered.
- The court must decide what steps must be taken to avoid a violation of the agreement.
- The necessary actions must be ones that the Court can enforce.
A claim for a mandatory injunction must establish a special injury or significant loss. There must be a duty on the part of the defendant to carry out specific actions before a lawsuit for a mandatory injunction can be brought, regardless of whether it is claimed that the other party has broken a duty on his part. The need must be a legal requirement and not only a moral duty.