Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title
Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title. Where a person contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having no title or only an imperfect title, the purchaser or lessee (subject to the other provisions of this Chapter), has the following rights, namely:-- (a) if the vendor or lessor has subsequently to the contract acquired any inte The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
(1) Where a person contracts to sell or let certain immovable property having no title or only an imperfect title, the purchaser or lessee (subject to the other provisions of this Chapter), has the following rights, namely:--
(a) if the vendor or lessor has subsequently to the contract acquired any interest in the property, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to make good the contract out of such interest;
(b) where the concurrence of other person is necessary for validating the title, and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such concurrence, and when a conveyance by other persons is necessary to validate the title and they are bound to convey at the request of the vendor or lessor, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to procure such conveyance;
(c) where the vendor professes to sell unencumbered property, but the property is mortgaged for an amount not exceeding the purchase money and the vendor has in fact only a right to redeem it, the purchaser may compel him to redeem the mortgage and to obtain a valid discharge, and, where necessary, also a conveyance from the mortgagee;
(d) where the vendor or lessor sues for specific performance of the contract and the suit is dismissed on the ground of his want of title or imperfect title, the defendant has a right to a return of his deposit, if any, with interest thereon, to his costs of the suit, and to a lien for such deposit, interest and costs on the interest, if any, of the vendor or lesser in the property which is the subject-matter of the contract.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall also apply, as far as may be, to contracts for the sale or hire of movable property.
Section 13, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Waheed Baig vs Bangi Lakshmamma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Lessee Under A Government Lease-Cum-Sale Scheme Who Has Not Acquired Full Ownership Cannot Enter Into A Valid Agreement For Sale Of The Property. Even If The Purchaser Has Paid The Sale Consideration And Discharged The Government Installments, The Court Cannot Compel The Lessee To Execute A Sale Deed Or Direct The Government To Transfer The Property When The Government Was Not A Party To The Agreement And Was Not Bound To Sell. The Doctrine Of Part Performance And The Provisions Of Section 13 Of The Specific Relief Act Cannot Override The Fundamental Principle That A Person Cannot Sell What He Does Not Own Or Have The Right To Sell.
On this section: Provides Rights Of A Purchaser Against A Vendor With No Title Or Imperfect Title; The Court Analyzed Whether This Section Could Compel The Lessee To Procure The Government's Conveyance When The Government Was Not Bound To Sell
-
Raman (dead) by L. R. S vs R. Natarajan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court cannot grant a decree for specific performance of a contract when the performance of the contract depends upon the defendant entering into an agreement with a third party who is not bound by the original contract and whose consent cannot be compelled by the court. Where a contract comprises interdependent parts and one part cannot be specifically enforced due to dependence on a third party's will, the other part also cannot be specifically enforced under Section 12(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, unless the exceptions in subsections (2), (3), or (4) apply.
On this section: Section 13(1)(b) provides that where the concurrence of other persons is necessary for validating title and they are bound to concur at the request of the vendor, the purchaser may compel the vendor to procure such concurrence. The Supreme Court held that this provision was not available to the respondent because the defendant's brother's wife was not bound to convey the land to the defendant.
-
Laxman Tatyaba Kankate vs Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a plaintiff has proven readiness and willingness to perform her part of a contract for sale of immovable property, has paid earnest money, and the defendant has failed to produce credible evidence of legal restrictions (such as mortgage or statutory prohibitions) that would bar specific performance, and where the defendant has taken advantage of the pendency of proceedings, the court's discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act should be exercised to grant specific performance, particularly when the plaintiff offers consideration substantially higher than the original agreement price, thereby balancing equities between the parties and removing any prejudice to the defendant.
On this section: Where person contracts to sell immovable property with imperfect title and property is encumbered for amount not exceeding purchase money, purchaser can compel seller to redeem mortgage and obtain valid discharge; respondent's rights fully protected under this provision
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Learned counsel went on to point out that when there was a failure on the part of the vendor to discharge the loan within one year from the date of the agreement, cause of action for the suit had arisen for the vendee and he should have brought the suit within three years thereafter. Relying on Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, it was contended that even assuming that the property was encumbered, the vendee could take recourse to Section 13(1) of the Act and get the encumbrance discharged and the sale deed executed. Having not done so, it cannot be said that the suit is not barred by limitation. 6. For the …
-
… It was further submitted that in any case the document (Exhibit-1) bears the thumb impressions of plaintiff Smt. Madu and Ganesh Ram and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit in terms of Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act'). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same was not maintainable. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded the findings of fact that the alleged agreement (Exhibit-D/1) was …
Questions about Section 13
What have the courts held on Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act?
Waheed Baig vs Bangi Lakshmamma (21 Apr 2008) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides Rights Of A Purchaser Against A Vendor With No Title Or Imperfect Title; The Court Analyzed Whether This Section Could Compel The Lessee To Procure The Government's Conveyance When The Government Was Not Bound To Sell. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Specific Relief Act 13, section 13 Specific Relief Act, section 13 of the Specific Relief Act. People searching for it also type specific relief act 1963 section 13 and section 13 of specific relief act case laws. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Waheed Baig vs Bangi Lakshmamma (21 Apr 2008).
When did Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 13, came into force on 01 Mar 1964, having been enacted on 13 Dec 1963. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 12. Specific performance of part of contract391 words
- 28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed382 words
- 15. Who may obtain specific performance330 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 words
- 20. Substituted performance of contract269 words
- 20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project260 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.