What is necessarily to be averred and proved by the party seeking specific performance of a contract?
Section 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, deals with the provisions of specific performance of contract. According to this section, if any party to a contract files a suit against another party who has breached the contract and claims specific performance of contract, then in such a case, as per the provision of section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is mandatory for the court to grant specific performance of contract.
Before the amendment of 2018, it was discretion of the court whether to grant specific performance or not. But after the amendment of 2018, it is mandatory for the court to grant specific performance of contract.
The main aim of this section is to protect the rights of an aggrieved party who is always ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations. Whenever a person enters into a contract with another person, he gives his consent only on the belief that another person will perform his contractual obligation. But if latter person fails to perform his obligations, then the aggrieved person has right to claim relief from the wrongdoer.
In the leading case of A.C. Arulappan vs. Ahalya Naik, the Hon’ble court held that granting specific performance of contract is a equitable relief but now a days, it is governed by Specific Relief Act, 1963.
According to section 10 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is mandatory for the court to grant specific performance of contract if plaintiff proves that he has performed or willing and ready to perform his contractual obligation and contract is such which can be specifically enforced.
According to this section, court always grants specific performance of contract subject to the provisions of section 11 (2), 14 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. If the contract is such which does not fall under these sections, then only, the court grants the specific performance of contract.