Specific Relief Act

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Nirmala Devi 2025 INSC 843 - Specific Relief Act- Inversion Test

CaseCiter

16 Jul 2025 • 3 min read

Law of Precedents - Not every observation in a judgment of this Court is binding as precedent. Only the ratio decidendi or the propositions of law that were necessary to decide on the issues between the parties are binding. Observations by the judge, even determinative statements of law, which are not part of her reasoning on a question or issue before the court, are termed obiter dicta. Such observations do not bind the Court. More simply, a case is only an authority for what it actually decides.(Para 47) Discussed Wambaugh’s Test / Inversion Test, Halsbury’s Test and Goodhart’s Test. (Para 47- 61) Inversion Test- The test mandates that to determine whether a particular proposition of law is part of the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed. This means that either that proposition is hypothetically removed from the judgment, or it is assumed that the proposition was decided in reverse. After such removal or reversal, if the decision of the Court on that issue before it would remain the same then the observations cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case (Para 50)

Specific Relief Act -Section 39- Conditions for granting a Mandatory Injunction.i) Obligation: There must be a clear obligation on the part of the defendant. ii) Breach: A breach of that obligation must have occurred or be reasonably apprehended iii) Necessity: It must be necessary to compel the performance of specific acts to prevent or rectify the breach. iv) Enforceability: The court must be able to enforce the performance of those acts. v) Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience must be in favour of the party seeking the injunction. vi) Irreparable Injury: The injury or damage caused by the breach must be irreparable or not adequately compensable in monetary terms.

Specific Relief Act - Section 2: The definition of ‘obligation’ in Section 2 of the Specific Relief Act is so wide that any breach of legal obligation may give a cause to the affected party. The definition of the word ‘obligation’ in Section 2 of the Act of 1963 should be interpreted in a way which may serve the cause of the society. Obligation’ may be said to be a bond or tie, which constrains a person to do or suffer something, it implies a right in another person to which it is co-related,and it restricts the freedom of the obligee with reference to definite acts and forbearance; but in order that it may be enforced by a Court, it must be a legal obligation. (Para 77)

Further Readings: