Substituted performance of contract
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with substituted performance of contract. 1, [20. Substituted performance of contract.-- (1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), and, except as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, where the contract is broken due to non-performance of promise by any party, the party The Act came into force on 01 Mar 1964.
1, 2[20. Substituted performance of contract.-- (1) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), and, except as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, where the contract is broken due to non-performance of promise by any party, the party who suffers by such breach shall have the option of substituted performance through a third party or by his own agency, and, recover the expenses and other costs actually incurred, spent or suffered by him, from the party committing such breach.
(2) No substituted performance of contract under sub-section (1) shall be undertaken unless the party who suffers such breach has given a notice in writing, of not less than thirty days, to the party in breach calling upon him to perform the contract within such time as specified in the notice, and on his refusal or failure to do so, he may get the same performed by a third party or by his own agency:
Provided that the party who suffers such breach shall not be entitled to recover the expenses and costs under sub-section (1) unless he has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency.
(3) Where the party suffering breach of contract has got the contract performed through a third party or by his own agency after giving notice under sub-section (1), he shall not be entitled to claim relief of specific performance against the party in breach.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the party who has suffered breach of contract from claiming compensation from the party in breach.]
Section 20, The Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
I. S. Sikandar (d) by Lrs. vs K. Subramani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a contract for sale of immovable property expressly agree to a specific time for performance of the contract, time becomes the essence of the contract and must be strictly adhered to. Failure to perform within the stipulated time constitutes a material breach which entitles the non-defaulting party to rescind the contract. A suit for specific performance based on a contract that has been validly terminated by the non-defaulting party is not maintainable unless the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief to challenge the termination. Additionally, a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove through credible documentary evidence and conduct that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all material times, including prior to filing the suit and continuing till the date of judgment. The burden of proof lies squarely on the plaintiff under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. When a plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the court cannot exercise its discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act to grant specific performance, notwithstanding the equitable considerations involved.
On this section: These sections grant discretionary power to the court to grant or refuse specific performance relief based on sound and reasonable grounds guided by judicial principles. The Court held that the High Court erred in exercising this discretion in favor of the plaintiff when the foundational requirements for specific performance (readiness and willingness, no material breach) had not been satisfied. The discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided by established legal principles.
-
Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 4 of the Partition Act 1893 grants a co-heir shareholder of a dwelling house held by an undivided family the right to undertake to buy the share of an outsider transferee, thereby excluding the outsider from acquiring the property. An agreement of sale executed by some co-heirs but not joined by all co-heirs (particularly a minor co-heir whose share is included) is void and ineffective. Specific performance is a discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and should not be granted after a considerable lapse of time (21 years) when property values have escalated significantly. A factual concession made by counsel with client instructions binds the client and cannot be challenged in appeal. The court shall exercise its discretion under Article 136 to uphold a High Court judgment that has done substantial justice by protecting all parties' rights equitably.
On this section: Section 20 was cited to establish that specific performance is a discretionary relief, not a matter of right. The court emphasized that in view of Section 20, the discretion to grant specific performance should be exercised carefully, particularly after a long lapse of time and when property values have escalated significantly in urban areas.
-
P. S. Ranakrishna Reddy vs M. K. Bhagyalakshmi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A document purporting to be an agreement for sale must be read in its entirety to ascertain the intention of the parties. The presence of default clauses and quantified damages does not negate the nature of an agreement for sale but merely defines the respective liabilities of the parties. When an agreement for sale is clear, unambiguous, and lawfully entered into by the parties with explicit terms and conditions, courts should exercise their discretionary jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to grant specific performance. Mere appreciation in property value is not a valid ground for refusing to enforce a lawful agreement of sale. Concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and high court should not be interfered with by the appellate court unless there is a clear error or miscarriage of justice.
On this section: The court discussed the discretionary jurisdiction of courts under Section 20 to grant or refuse specific performance. The court held that discretion should be exercised to grant specific performance when the agreement is clear, unambiguous, and lawfully entered into by the parties, and that mere appreciation in property value is not a valid ground for refusing specific performance.
-
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: Court has wide discretion to decree specific performance or decline same; discretion must be exercised considering circumstances, conduct of parties, their respective interests, and whether contract is equal and fair; court should not grant specific performance if it would give unfair advantage or involve unforeseen hardship
-
Satish Kumar vs Karan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A contract for specific performance is unenforceable and no decree for specific performance can be granted if the contract itself suffers from a defect which makes it invalid or unenforceable, including where the subject matter of the contract is non-transferable due to legal restrictions imposed by statutory authorities, thereby making performance of the obligation legally impossible. The jurisdiction of the court to grant specific performance is contingent on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract; courts cannot create a contract for parties or enforce obligations that are legally impossible to perform.
On this section: Section 20 preserves judicial discretion of courts in decreeing specific performance. Courts are not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. All facts and circumstances must be meticulously considered, and the motive behind litigation should be examined. The court must ensure the remedy is not used as an instrument of oppression or to confer unfair advantage.
-
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs New Era Fabrics P. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an agreement for sale is contingent upon obtaining labour union consent as an essential condition, and the labour union refuses consent, the agreement stands frustrated and the seller is not bound to complete the sale. A buyer cannot unilaterally waive a condition that is for the mutual benefit of both parties, and such waiver cannot revive a terminated and frustrated contract. When a contingent condition cannot be fulfilled, the appropriate remedy is return of earnest money with stipulated interest, not specific performance.
On this section: Court noted that specific relief is discretionary and courts can refuse to grant it when circumstances have changed or conditions cannot be fulfilled
-
Rattan Lal (d) Thr. Lrs vs S. N. Bhalla
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a party invoking a termination clause in a contract (such as Clause 9 in an agreement to sell) has not made serious and conscientious efforts to fulfill their primary obligations under the contract, they cannot take advantage of the termination clause to escape performance. A party's passive receipt of refunded earnest money 'without prejudice' to their rights does not constitute acceptance of contract termination. The acceptance of readiness and willingness to perform must be judged by the totality of conduct including efforts to assist in obtaining necessary governmental clearances, and not merely by the timing of filing suit within limitation period. Where specific performance is rendered impractical due to passage of time and changed circumstances (such as property value escalation), the court may exercise equitable discretion to award monetary compensation instead, thereby vindicating the rights of the party ready and willing to perform while acknowledging practical realities.
On this section: Relief of specific performance is discretionary; Court considered discretion but held that change in property value and delay, not misconduct of Appellant, justified denial of specific performance while awarding compensation
-
Mohammedia Coop. Building Society LTD vs Lakshmi S. Coop. Builing Soc. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A contract for sale of wakf property executed by Mujavars without prior sanction from the Wakf Board obtained in compliance with mandatory procedures prescribed under Section 36A of the Wakf Act 1954 and Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Rules cannot be enforced through decree for specific performance. The statutory procedures for alienation of wakf property, including publication of proposed transaction in official gazettes, invitation of objections for minimum 30 days, consideration of objections, and publication of final sanction order in the same manner, are mandatory and imperative in nature. Non-compliance with these procedures renders the transaction void ab initio. Furthermore, where Mujavars lack lawful authority to alienate the property and the permission purportedly granted is not authenticated or published as required by law, courts cannot grant discretionary relief of specific performance, particularly when there are intrinsic evidences of forgery and the party seeking enforcement itself engaged in subsequent contradictory conduct by making counter-bids.
On this section: Court held that specific performance is discretionary relief. Courts must exercise discretion judiciously considering all circumstances including party conduct, statutory compliance, and justice between parties.
-
Hardeo Rai vs Sakuntala Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a member of a joint family makes an agreement to sell property and represents that the property has been partitioned and that he is in separate possession of his definite share, and where the buyer has acted on such representation by entering into the agreement and taking partial possession, and where the seller himself admits in evidence that he is in separate possession of a definite portion of the property, the seller is estopped from later claiming that the property is joint family property. Once a coparcener takes a definite share and is in separate possession, the property ceases to be coparcenary property and becomes his separate property, which he can freely alienate. The court will not refuse to grant specific performance of such an agreement merely on the claim that the property is joint family property, especially when no supporting evidence (such as proof of joint kitchen and mess or examination of other alleged coparceners) is adduced, and when decades have elapsed without objection from alleged coparceners.
On this section: The court examined whether discretionary jurisdiction should be exercised to refuse specific performance. The Court held that the discretion should not be exercised to refuse performance where the defendant's own admission of separate possession and the long lapse of time without objection from alleged coparceners militate against refusing enforcement.
-
T.S. Vasanth Kumar v. Anitha Karuturi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-8.pdf 2023-12-22 DATE VERIFIED (Seshasayee J.). Interim CMA on MoU sale/specific-performance suit: after Act 18/2018, SRA s.20 leaves little discretion on specific performance and now provides for substituted performance — trial court directed to explore amicable settlement in that light; alienation injunction partly allowed. Map SRA 20 (post-2018 substituted performance).
On this section: Post-2018 s.20 substituted performance — little discretion left on SP; trial court to explore amicable settlement.
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.
-
… agreement and in fact they remained present before the Sub Registrar, Nilokheri on 10.02.2005, which has been established and proved, the decree for specific performance is rightly passed by the first appellate Court, which is rightly confirmed by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances, clauses (a) & (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act shall not be applicable and/or attracted. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the first appellate Court and the High Court. However, at the same time to do the complete justice between the parties and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we …
-
… In fact, both the Courts below have not even framed an issue as to the readiness and willingness. No suit for specific performance could be decided without framing an issue on readiness and willingness. In view of the discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed merely because it is lawful to do so. A person seeking equitable relief must show his readiness and willingness from the inception till the agreement culminated into a sale deed. Readiness and willingness is a continuous process that must …
-
… It was also found that the advance sale consideration as claimed by the plaintiff was paid. The plaintiff was found to have been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the breach occurred on the part of the defendants. However, the Court, exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act declined decree for specific performance and decreed return of advance sale consideration with interest. 7. The defendants have not filed any appeal or cross objections challenging the decree. Hence issues regarding genuiness of Ext.A1 and the advance paid thereunder does not call for …
Questions about Section 20
What have the courts held on Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act?
I. S. Sikandar (d) by Lrs. vs K. Subramani (29 Aug 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: These sections grant discretionary power to the court to grant or refuse specific performance relief based on sound and reasonable grounds guided by judicial principles. The Court held that the High Court erred in exercising this discretion in favor of the plaintiff when the foundational requirements for specific performance (readiness and willingness, no material breach) had not been satisfied. The discretionary power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided by established legal principles. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 20 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 20, section 20 Specific Relief Act, section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with I. S. Sikandar (d) by Lrs. vs K. Subramani (29 Aug 2013).
What should I read with Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act come into force?
Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, cited as Specific Relief Act 20, 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
- 13. Rights of purchaser or lessee against person with no title or imperfect title309 words
- 26. When instrument may be rectified292 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.