Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prem Raj, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a contract with the respondent, D.L.F. Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd., was void and inoperative on the ground of undue influence. In the alternative, he prayed for a decree for specific performance of certain terms of the same contract. The first respondent raised a preliminary objection that having claimed the agreement to be void, the appellant could not in the same suit alternatively seek specific performance. The trial court rejected this objection. The High Court, in revision under Section 115(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, held that the appellant could not be permitted to maintain the alternative prayer for specific performance, and therefore the suit must fail so far as that relief was concerned. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The main legal issue was whether a plaintiff suing for rescission of a contract could in the alternative sue for specific performance of the same contract. The Supreme Court examined Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a plaintiff to pray for inconsistent reliefs, but each such plea must be independently maintainable. The Court observed that the relief of specific performance had to be tested against the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Section 37 of that Act expressly permits a plaintiff suing for specific performance to alternatively claim rescission, but no provision permits the converse. Section 35, which deals with rescission, does not allow an alternative claim for specific performance. The Court held that the omission was deliberate and reflected the legislative intent that a plaintiff seeking rescission cannot in the alternative pray for specific performance. Consequently, the alternative prayer was not maintainable. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order that the suit must fail in respect of the alternative relief.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Alternative Reliefs - Order 7 Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Permits plaintiff to claim inconsistent reliefs, but each relief must be legally maintainable on its own. Held that the alternative prayer for specific performance must be examined under the Specific Relief Act. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Specific Performance - Rescission - Sections 35 and 37, Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 37 allows a plaintiff suing for specific performance to alternatively claim rescission, but the converse is not provided. Section 35 governs rescission but does not permit an alternative claim for specific performance. Held that the omission is deliberate and the plaintiff cannot sue for rescission and alternatively for specific performance. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a plaintiff suing for rescission of a contract can alternatively sue for specific performance of the same contract under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; held that under Specific Relief Act, a plaintiff suing for rescission cannot alternatively sue for specific performance, as Section 37 allows only the converse, and the omission is deliberate; the alternative prayer was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 7 CPC allows inconsistent reliefs if each is maintainable
- Section 37 Specific Relief Act allows rescission as alternative to specific performance but converse not allowed
- Section 35 Specific Relief Act does not permit specific performance as alternative to rescission
