Partial Performance and the Limits of Contractual Flexibility: An Analysis of Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie

Citation: 2025 INSC 52. [PDF]

Introduction

The case Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie is a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India concerning the specific performance of contracts, particularly when a party cannot fulfill all their contractual obligations. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with the specific performance of part of a contract.

This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a court can order partial performance of a contract and highlights the importance of the principle of "readiness and willingness" on the part of a plaintiff seeking such relief. The Court emphasizes that specific performance of a part of a contract is not a matter of right but is a discretionary remedy, subject to certain conditions and limitations.

Furthermore, the decision underscores that a party seeking the benefit of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act must be free from default. The party should not be the cause of their inability to perform the contract. It also clarifies that the relinquishment of claims for the unperformed portion of the contract can be made at any stage of litigation.

Case Summary

  1. Original Dispute: The case originated from a sale agreement dated November 7, 2005, between Vijay Prabhu (plaintiff) and S.T. Lajapathie & Ors. (defendants). Vijay Prabhu sought specific performance of the agreement, asking the court to compel the defendants to sell the property. Alternatively, he sought damages of ₹60,00,000 with interest. He had paid ₹20,00,000 as earnest money.
  2. Trial Court Decision: The Trial Court rejected Vijay Prabhu’s plea for specific performance, finding that he was not "ready and willing" to perform his part of the contract. The court also found that he failed to prove he had suffered damages. It ordered a refund of the earnest money with interest.
  3. High Court Appeal: Vijay Prabhu appealed the Trial Court’s decision to the High Court of Madras. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's judgment. It also examined the applicability of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act and concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under this section. The High Court observed that the plaintiff had also claimed damages, which is against the provisions of Section 12(3), and that the contract in question could not be compartmentalized for part performance.
  4. Supreme Court Appeal: Vijay Prabhu then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, affirming the High Court’s decision. It upheld the denial of specific performance and directed that the earnest money, along with the accumulated interest, be refunded to Vijay Prabhu. The Supreme Court clarified that relinquishment of claim can be made at any stage of litigation.

Study guide

  1. Understand Specific Performance: Explore the concept of specific performance as a legal remedy where a court orders a party to fulfill their contractual obligations. In the context of property sales, this means forcing the seller to transfer the property to the buyer. Compare it with other remedies like damages.
  2. Examine Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act: Study Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which deals with specific performance of a part of a contract. Pay attention to its sub-sections (1), (2), (3), and (4). Note that subsection 1 states that the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of a contract. Understand that there are exceptions to this general rule that are mentioned in the other sub-sections.
  3. Analyze 'Unable to Perform': Understand the meaning of the phrase 'unable to perform' within the context of Section 12. Note the various reasons including deficiency in quantity, variance in quality, defect in title, or legal prohibitions that can make a party 'unable to perform' the whole of their contract.
  4. Explore the Concept of 'Considerable Part': Learn what the expression “considerable part” means in the context of Section 12(3), referring to a significant portion of the contract that remains unperformed, either in quantity or quality.
  5. Conditions Under Section 12(3): Understand the conditions that a party must fulfill to seek relief under Section 12(3). These include paying the full consideration (or reduced amount, if applicable) and relinquishing all claims to the unperformed portion of the contract and any compensation.
  6. 'Readiness and Willingness': Understand the importance of the plaintiff's 'readiness and willingness' to perform their part of the contract. A plaintiff who is in default of their obligations cannot seek the benefit of Section 12(3).
  7. Discretionary Power of the Court: Analyze the discretionary nature of the court’s power in granting relief under Section 12(3). The court has to look at the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
  8. Relinquishment of Claims: Examine the significance of relinquishing claims to the unperformed part of the contract. Understand that this relinquishment can be made at any stage of the litigation.

Rationale

  1. Plaintiff's Default: The courts determined that Vijay Prabhu was not "ready and willing" to perform his part of the contract. This finding disqualified him from invoking Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act. The courts highlighted that Section 12(3) cannot be used to overcome a plaintiff’s own default in failing to be ready and willing to perform the contract.
  2. Conditions of Section 12(3): Section 12(3) requires the party seeking specific performance of a part of the contract to pay the entire consideration (or a reduced sum where applicable) and to relinquish all claims to the remaining part of the contract and any compensation. The plaintiff in this case had not paid the full consideration and was also seeking damages, which is not allowed under section 12 (3).
  3. Nature of Contract: The courts noted that Section 12(3) is only applicable when the contract permits the segregation of rights and interests in the property. The court determined that the contract in question could not be compartmentalized.
  4. Discretionary Relief: The court emphasized that granting partial relief under Section 12(3) is discretionary and not mandatory. It depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
  5. Timing of Relinquishment: The Supreme Court clarified that the relinquishment of claims can be made at any stage of the litigation, including during an appeal. This means that a party is not required to raise this issue before the trial court alone.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the primary relief that Vijay Prabhu sought in the original suit?

Answer: Vijay Prabhu primarily sought specific performance of the sale agreement, meaning he wanted the court to force the defendants to sell him the property as per the agreement. He also sought, alternatively, damages with interest if specific performance was not possible.

Q.2. What does ‘specific performance’ mean in the context of a property sale agreement?

Answer: Specific performance is a legal remedy where the court orders the breaching party of a contract to fulfill their obligations under the contract. In a sale agreement, this means the court can force the seller to sell the property to the buyer as agreed.

Q.3. Why did the Trial Court not order specific performance in this case?

Answer: The Trial Court did not grant specific performance primarily because it found that the plaintiff was not “ready and willing” to complete his part of the contract. Additionally, the Trial Court found the plaintiff had not proven that he had suffered damages.

Q.4. What is Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and how does it relate to this case?

Answer: Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with specific performance of part of a contract. It allows a court, under certain circumstances, to order the performance of only a portion of a contract if the entire contract cannot be performed. The plaintiff in this case sought the benefit of Section 12(3), which was ultimately rejected by the court.

Q.5. What are the key conditions under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act for partial performance of a contract?

Answer: There are a number of sub-sections within Section 12. Subsection (1) states that the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of a contract, except when the other subsections are applicable. Under Sub-section (2) if the unperformed part of the contract is small in proportion to the whole and can be compensated with money, the court may order specific performance of what is possible and award monetary compensation for what cannot be performed. Under sub-section (3) where the part left unperformed is a considerable part of the whole or cannot be compensated with money, the plaintiff can obtain specific performance if they pay the full consideration (or reduced amount if part performance can be compensated by money) and gives up any claims for the unperformed portion of the contract and any damage arising from it. Sub-section (4) allows for specific performance of a portion of a contract if it is distinct and separate from the part which cannot be performed.

Q.6. Why did the High Court and the Supreme Court ultimately deny the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance under Section 12?

Answer: Both the High Court and the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff could not take recourse to Section 12(3) because the plaintiff was not ‘ready and willing’ to complete his part of the contract. Also the plaintiff had not paid the full consideration and was also asking for damages as an alternative relief which is against the requirements of Section 12 (3). Finally, the courts held that specific performance of a part of a contract should only be ordered when the contract allows for the segregation of rights and interests in the property, which they did not find present in the current case.

Q.7. Can a party relinquish their claim to the remaining part of a contract only at the appellate stage?

Answer: No. The Supreme Court clarified that relinquishment of the claim to the remaining part of the contract and any compensation claims can be made at any stage of litigation, including the appellate stage.

Q.8. What was the final order given by the Supreme Court in this case?

Answer: The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the High Court's decision and denying specific performance. It directed that the earnest money of ₹20,00,000, which was deposited by the defendant in the Trial Court, be returned to the plaintiff along with any accrued interest.

Conclusion

Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie is an important case for understanding the limitations of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The judgment makes it clear that courts will not grant specific performance of part of a contract unless the party seeking such relief is not in default and fulfills all the necessary conditions under the section. The case reiterates that specific performance is a discretionary remedy and highlights the importance of "readiness and willingness" on the part of the plaintiff. The clarification regarding the stage at which claims can be relinquished offers more flexibility in litigation.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more