Nirmala Anand v Sri Advent Corporation Pvt Ltd
Rule established
A rise in the price of property between the date of agreement and the date of decree is not, by itself, a ground to refuse specific performance; courts may mould relief by directing additional compensation to offset price escalation.
Facts
- The parties entered an agreement for sale of a flat; a dispute arose and the purchaser filed a suit for specific performance
- By the time the matter reached final decision, property prices had risen substantially from the date of the original agreement
- The seller argued specific performance should be refused, or replaced with compensation, because of the price rise
Issue
- Whether a substantial rise in property value between the agreement date and the date of decree is a valid ground to deny specific performance and instead award only damages.
Held
- Mere escalation in price during the pendency of the suit is not sufficient by itself to refuse specific performance
- The court retains discretion to grant specific performance while directing the plaintiff to pay an additional amount to the defendant to account for the escalation, so that the relief is equitable to both sides
- Specific performance remains the primary remedy under the Specific Relief Act for agreements concerning immovable property; denial should not be automatic merely because market conditions have shifted
- The decree can be moulded to balance the interests of both parties rather than an all-or-nothing outcome
Ratio Decidendi
Courts exercising discretion under the Specific Relief Act may adjust the terms of a specific performance decree, including requiring additional payment to reflect price escalation, rather than refusing the remedy outright. Delay-driven price rise, without more, does not defeat the plaintiff's right to specific performance.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Key authority for the "moulding of relief" principle in specific performance cases.
- Part B: Contrast with situations of genuine hardship or inequity where courts may decline specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
- Key line: "Price rise pendente lite is addressed through equitable adjustment, not outright denial of the remedy."
Source
Source: (2002) 8 SCC 146; standard casebook authority on price escalation and specific performance
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.