Balwinder Sarpal And ANR v. Ram Kumar Bansal

However, otherwise also the defendant could not have, unilaterally, cancelled the agreement in question. Unilateral cancellation of agreement to sell by one party is not permissible in law except where the agreement is determinable in terms of Section 14 of this Specific Relief Act. Such cancellation cannot be raised as a defence in a suit for specific performance. If any such a plea of cancellation/termination is raised by the defendant than the Court can just ignore this and the plaintiff need not 6 of 8 challenge such an alleged cancellation. If such unilateral cancellation of nondeterminable agreement is permitted as a defence then virtually every suit for specific performance can be frustrated by the defendant. Therefore the Specific Reliefs Act has made detailed provisions for this aspect.

The bare perusal of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act shows that once a party claims the right of revocation or rescission, of the agreement then such a party is required to seek a declaration from the Court regarding the validity of revocation or rescission, as the case may be. In the present case also, it was not the duty cast upon the plaintiff to challenge the alleged cancellation of agreement, which, otherwise also, is not proved on record. On the contrary, if the defendant so claimed that he had valid reasons to terminate the contract or rescind the contract then he should have sought a declaration from the competent Court, as required under Section 27 and31 of Specific Relief Act. Hence the plea of termination of agreement raised by the defendant has rightly not been accepted by the Courts below.

18. So far as the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of I.S. Sikandar (supra) is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, that judgement is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the defendant had, in fact, asked the plaintiff to make the payment of the money and to get the sale deed executed. On failure of the plaintiff to make the payment the agreement had become determinable and the defendant had terminated the contract by specific communication. This action of the defendant was within the realm of the Contract Act, as provided under Section 38 and 51 of the Contract Act and Section 14of Specific Relief Act, which provides that in case of the performance which was required of the plaintiff/promisee is refused by him 7 of 8 then the

defendant/promisor need not perform his part of the agreement. In the present case, the appellant had not offered the performance on his part. Still further, in the present case, the termination as such has also not been proved on record, as has been held above."