On 15 February 2022, Ramesh entered into a registered agreement with Suresh for the sale of 12 acre of agricultural land situated at Arsikere village for a total sale consideration of ₹ 72 lakh. An advance of ₹ 12 lakh w

The issue before the Court is whether Suresh can compel Ramesh to specifically perform the contract in respect of 9 acres of land despite the fact that 3 acres had already been acquired by the State Government prior to the execution of the agreement. Under Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (the Act), specific performance of a contract is the general rule subject to the limitations prescribed under Sections 11(2), 14, and 16. However, Section 12 deals with situations where a party is unable to perform the whole of the contract. Section 12(1) of the Act provides that except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of a contract. Sections 12(2) to 12(4) provides the provisions where partial specific performance may be allowed. Section 12(3): Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the whole of his part of it, and the part which must be left unperformed either- (a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though admitting of compensation in money; or (b) does not admit of compensation in money; he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance; but the court may, at the suit of the other party, direct the party in default to perform specifically so much of his part of the contract as he can perform, if the other party- (i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid the agreed consideration for the whole of the contract reduced by the consideration for the part which must be left unperformed and in a case falling under clause (b) pays or has paid the consideration for the whole of the contract without any abatement; and (ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the performance of the remaining part of the contract and all right to compensation, either for the deficiency or for the loss or damage sustained by him through the default of the defendant. Section 12(4): When a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct specific performance of the former part. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, a party to a contract shall be deemed to be unable to perform the whole of his part of it if a portion of its subject-matter existing at the date of the contract has ceased to exist at the time of its performance. In the given situation: Out of 12 acres, 3 acres (25%) cannot be conveyed as the land ceased to exist in the ownership of the vendor at the time of performance. Since 9 acres still exist and can be transferred, Suresh is willing to accept them and relinquish his claim over the unperformable portion (3 acres). The present case squarely falls under Section 12, which applies where a part of the contract cannot be performed, the unperformable part is not capable of compensation in money, and the part which can be performed forms a substantial portion of the contract, and the plaintiff relinquishes all claims to the unperformable part and agrees to pay the full or proportionate consideration for the part that can be performed. In this case, the land measuring 3 acres had already been acquired by the State prior to the agreement. Hence, performance in respect of that portion has become legally impossible, not due to any fault of the purchaser. The remaining 9 acres are identifiable, available, and capable of conveyance. Suresh has expressly stated his willingness to relinquish his claim over the 3 acres and to pay proportionate consideration for the remaining 9 acres. Thus, the statutory conditions under Section 12 stand satisfied. In view of the above mentioned discussions, Suresh can be entitled to decree of specific performance to the extent of 9 acres.