(b) any other exemption to which he is entitled, including the reimbursement of funds or sureties paid by him or her in the event of a refusal of his right to a particular benefit. `7. I consider that a mere interpretation of that provision, namely the second part of Order 1 paragraph 10 sub-rule (2) CCP, would make it clear that the parties necessary for legal action for the specific performance of a contract of sale are the contracting parties or, where they have died, their legal representatives and a person who has purchased ownership of the contract from the seller. In terms of fairness and law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the commitments of the parties. A buyer is a necessary party, as he would be concerned if he had purchased the contract with or without notice, but a person who prejudices the rights of a seller is not a necessary party. It is clear from the above that two tests must be carried out to determine who is a necessary part. The tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against that party with regard to controversies related to the procedure; 2. In the absence of this party, no effective order may be made. The Court of Hon`ble decided that section 14 (3) (c) (iii) must be interpreted specifically to eliminate absurdity and anomaly resulting from a literal interpretation. The promoter simply must meet the two conditions set out in subsections (i) and (ii) in order for the use of a given benefit to be maintained against the owner. There are always exceptions to the general rule.
There are certain categories of persons who have the right to impose a specific performance of the contract when they are not parties. “14. The amendment of the Specific Relief Act 1963 by Act 18 of 2018 replaces the expression “not aver and proves” with the expression “which does not prove” and the expression “must prove aver” with the expression “must prove”, but the position on all material aspects remains the same that the concrete performance of a contract cannot be imposed for the benefit of the person, which does not prove that it has already fulfilled the essential conditions of the contract which it must fulfil or that it has always been willing and willing to fulfil, with the exception of those conditions the performance of which the other party has prevented or cancelled. The Law of Special Relief in India was originally codified by the Specific Relief Act of 1877. The provision of this Order was considered by the Commission in its Ninth Report, which was subsequently replaced by this Act of 1963. The Specific Relief Act 1963 deals with appeals granted at the discretion of the General Court for the application of the individual rights of citizens. In the event of an infringement, the general appeal available to the victim shall be the replacement or damages of the damage suffered. . .
Posted in: Uncategorized