In Brief
The respondent sought specific performance of a 1993 sale agreement for land. The trial court granted it, but the first appellate court reversed the decree. The High Court restored it. The Supreme Court allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that a court cannot decree specific performance when the contract's execution depends on the defendant entering into a separate, binding agreement with an uninvolved third party. Since the defendant's brother's wife was not a party to the suit and could not be compelled to cooperate, the court could not enforce the contract. The court rejected the relief but awarded refund of the amount paid with interest at 9% p.a.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.