This document summarizes a leading case on the law of equity in India. It discusses a case where a plaintiff claimed specific performance of a contract to purchase property but later withdrew that claim. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not then claim damages, as relief under the Specific Relief Act requires the plaintiff to still be ready and willing to perform the contract. The contract was also found not binding on the defendant, as the person who made it did not have proper authority. The key rules from this case are that a plaintiff cannot claim specific performance and damages if abandoning the specific performance claim, and non-performance of a contract means no compensation.

1. Subject: Law of Equity
(Leading Case: Ardeshir V. Flora)
Submitted to:
Sir Hussain Ahmad Madni
Submitted by: Group-E
LL.B. (Hons.) – 6th Semester
Session 2009-14
Bahauddin Zakariya University Law
College, Multan

2. Group Members
Group Leader: Zeeshan Bahadur (25)
Assistants:
M. Ahmad Nawaz (07)
M. Mubashir
(19)
Sheryar Khan
(09)
Abdul Rahman (33)
Asrar-ur-Rahman(27)
Hamza Nadeem (22)
Imran Rahmat
(37)
S.Yusuf Raza
(05)
Sana Ullah Nawaz (53)

3. Judges:
Lord Phillimore
Lord Balmesbarg
Years: 1919-1924

4. 



Plaintiff (Ardishir) claims specific performance
of a contract (Under Sec.19 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1877)
Compensation in addition or in substitution
Afterwards withdraw his claim of specific
performance.
Now here damages cannot be recovered for
breach of contract because plaintiff
withdrawn this claim.

5. 


At trial Court has the power to allow the
necessary amendment.
An amendment should not be allowed when
the suit is in pending for specific
performance.
An amendment in which plaintiff was still
willing to perform the contract and claimed
specific performance, isn't appropriated to
suit for damages for its breach.

6. 


10th Jan. 1921: Appellant (Ardishir) sues
against the defendant (Flora) in High Court in
Bombay and points out a contract made by
him with the Judah.
The contract made on 29th Dec.1919
included the sale of a residential property for
18 lakhs and 1 lakh earnest money.
Appellant clearly stated that he was ready and
willing to perform and claimed specific
performance and also damages.

7. 


The defendant (Flora) denied the authority of
Judah by written statement.
In July 1920, her solicitor repudiated that
contract and returned the cheque of earnest
money (1 lakh) to appellant but he returned
to them.
In Aug. 1920, that property was sold to
another purchaser for 25 lakhs and appellant
wasn’t able to enforce that contract.

8. 
19th March,1924: Appellant gave notice for
claiming damages and leaving claim for
specific performance
That appeal involved the issues:
i.
Whether there was a concluded agreement
as alleged
ii.
Whether the appellant was entitled to any,
and if so what damages


9. 


At the trial, plaintiff was allowed to amend
the plaint. A claim was added in alternative
for the return of one lakh rupees with interest
and 7 lakh damages.
Initially the trial court assessed the damages
of 7 lakh and consequently issued a ruling for
damages and advance money along with
interest.
Defendant made an appeal, then court
cancelled the damages but sustained the
decree regarding advance money.

10. 
Chief Justice held that Judah has no authority
to make a contract on behalf of the defendant
and damages could not be awarded as
plaintiff vacant his claim of specific
performance (Sec 19 Specific Relief Act).
Against these orders plaintiff made a 2nd
appeal to His Majesty In Council

11. 
The principal question was that whether
◦ contract was binding on the defendant and;
◦ would it be acceptable for trial judge to re-establish
damages against her.

Their Lordships held that
• appellant had not proved that mentioned contract
was binding on respondent.
• Therefore agreement made on Dec. 1919 was not
binding on defendant.

12. 
Their Lordships were of the opinion that
◦ By leaving claim for specific performance by
plaintiff, here he had not only gave-up but
disentitled himself from specific performance.
So there was no power in the case after 19th
Mar.1924 when the defendant left the specific
performance claim.
But plaintiff intended that he asked in his
amendment to convert his suit into damages
simply.
Appeal dismissed with costs.

13. 
In this case the rule has been laid down that
 Claim of specific performance and compensation
under sec.19 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, cannot be
made when plaintiff abandons his claim for specific
performance without amending his plaint.
 Since relief under Specific Relief Act can be given
only when the plaintiff is ready and willing to
perform the contract.

14. 


The contract should be made directly with the
owner of the property or any authorized
person after confirming it.
Delay defeats equity.
Non-performance of a contract leads to no
compensation.