The document discusses the synthesis of the doctrine of equity in the Specific Relief Act of 1963 in India. It provides background on equity and the Specific Relief Act. It then analyzes how various sections of the Act codify principles of equity, such as granting specific performance of contracts in accordance with equitable principles like "he who seeks equity must do equity." Overall, the document examines how the Specific Relief Act incorporates and applies doctrines developed in equity courts to provide equitable remedies.

1. SYNTHESIS OF DOCTRINE OF
EQUITY IN SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT,
1963
Presented by-
Gaurangi Sharma

2. SYNOPSIS
• Introduction
• A&O, Research Methodology, Research Questions
• Hypothesis
• Doctrine of Equity
• Background of Specific Relief Act, 1963 [SRA]
• Application of Doctrine of Equity in SRA
• Analysis & Conclusion

3. Introduction
• Equity
• Neither Natural Justice, nor all portion of natural justice capable of being
judicially enforced.
• System of justice administered in particular court.
• Crucial truth of righteousness.
• Principles of equity: Ultimate source of equity

4. Principles of equity
Equity will not suffer a wrong to
be without a remedy
Equity follows the law
He who seeks equity must
do equity
He who comes to equity
must come with clean
hands
Delay defeats equity
Equality is equity
Equity looks to the intent
rather than the form

5. SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
• India: Court of law + equity
• Two forms of remedies: Legal remedy + equitable remedy
• Remedy: To cure.
• Specific Relief Act, 1963 embodies principles that govern exercise of
remedial justice.
• It codifies rules of equity and good conscience.

6. Background of SRA
• The Specific Relief Act 1963, was brought into force on 13-12-
1963.
• Specific Relief Act was enacted in 1877. The Act was originally
drafted upon the lines of the Draft, New York Civil Code, 1862,
and its main provisions embodied the doctrines evolved by the
English Equity Courts. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is the
outcome of the acceptance by the Central Government on the
recommendations made by the Law Commission of India.
• Its main objective is to provide relief to the parties who have
suffered civil wrong.

7. Walking through SRA with the lens of Equity
The rights
codified under
the 1963 Act:
Recovery of
possession of
immovable
property
(Sec 5 – 8)
Specific
performance
of contracts
(Sec 9 – 25)
Rectification
of
Instruments
(Sec 26)
Recession of
Contracts
(Sec 27 – 30)
Cancellation
of
Instruments
(Sec 31 – 33)
Declaratory
Decrees
(Sec 34 – 35)
Injunctions
(Sec 36 – 42)

8. Recovery of possession of
immovable/moveable property (Sec 5 –
8)
• Any person who is lawful owner of the property can get the
possession of such property by due course of law, property may be
immovable property or movable property.
• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
• Delay defeats Equity
• Equity follows law

9. Specific Performance of Contract (Sections 9-25)
• The court grants specific performance in mainly two situations according
to section 10 of this act: if there is no standard for ascertaining the damage
and when compensation in money is not adequate relief in facts and
circumstances of case.
• Ram Karan V. Govind Lal
• Purshottam V. Purshottam
• Contracts requiring the performance of a continuous duty extending over
period longer than three years from the date of the contract cannot be
specifically enforced.

10. HE WHO COMES TO EQUITY MUST
COME WITH CLEAN HANDS
• If the plaintiff is involved in fraud or misrepresentation that concerns the respective case then he
cannot demand equity. This principle is also adopted in Section 17, 18 and 20 of Specific Relief Act,
1963 which lay down that a plaintiff’s unfair conduct will disentitle him to the equitable relief of
specific performance of a contract. (K Narendra v. Riveria Apartments (P) Ltd., AIR 1999 SC
2309)
• Section 17, Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• Section 18, Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• Section 20, Specific Relief Act, 1963.

11. Rectification of Instruments, Section 26
• An Instrument is written record arising out of negotiation of contract. Sometimes, an instrument
may fail to express the intention of the involved parties. Rectification of such an instrument may
become necessary.
• Remedy of getting the instrument rectified under the provision arises from the very root of having a
right to enter into the contract or to enact the instrument.
• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

12. Rescission of contracts, Section 27-30
• Rescission is also an equitable remedy, it is converse to that of
specific performance.
• Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable,
and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left
outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it
adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so
adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
• He who seeks equity must do equity.

13. Declaratory decrees, Section 34-36
• Section 34 deals with that when any person has a certain right or obligation over the property and he has
been denied that right by any party, then the aggrieved party may file a suit for the enforcement of the right
over the property which has been denied to him. The Court will give a declaration after looking over the case
that the aggrieved party has a right over the title of such property and so a declaratory decree will be passed.
Such declaratory decree will not be passed by the court when the plaintiff demands something more than the
title over that property.
• Section 35 deals with the effect of the declaration which explains that this decree will be binding to only
to those which are the parties to suit.

14. Cancellation of contract, Sec 31-33
• Section 31 explains that when an instrument is void or voidable against a person then he can get that
instrument if it may cause damage to it.
• Section 32 deals when a contract can be partially cancelled; for example, in cases where there are
certain rights and obligations connected with some parties through that contract, then the court
accordingly may cancel the faulty portion and let the other in motion.
• Section 33 has two heads in it i.e., powers to aggrieved party after cancellation and orders to the
defendant after cancellation.
• The equitable relief of cancellation of an instrument is founded upon the administration of protective
justice, for the fear that the instrument maybe injuriously used by the defendant against the plaintiff
when the evidence to impeach it may be lost.
• Lodge v. National Union Investment Company Ltd.

15. Injunction, Section 36-42
• “Injunction is an order made by the court forbidding a person or class of persons doing a certain act or acts of a
certain class upon pain of going to prison as contemnors of court.”
• Granting of injunction is a matter of judicial discretion for the court but must be exercised on settled principles of
law to advance the cause of justice.
• He who seeks equity must do equity.
• Section 37- Temporary and perpetual injunction, Section 39- Mandatory Injunction
• He who seeks equity must do equity.
• The main consideration as provided by Section 38(2) is that a perpetual injunction cannot be granted to prevent
the breach of contract, the performance of which would not be specifically enforced.
• Chand Sultana v. Kurshid Begum

16. Conclusion
• The laws related to equity have evolved through precedent and the
intention is to grant equitable rights and remedies to the parties.
• Where the sternness of the law threatens justice, equity prevails,
and where equity has no remedy the letter of law is followed.
Justice, thus, depends upon both and thus, both must be consulted
in order to deliver justice.
• Even though the potential scope of equitable remedies remains
largely unknown with more issues arising regarding legal remedies
it is sure to be explored in future litigation.