Harish Kumar vs Amar Nath 2025 INSC 924 - Specific Performance - Burden & Onus Of Proof
Law of Evidence - Distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof- Onus of proof has greater force when the issue is which party is to begin forwarding evidence in support of a proposition. (Para 13)
Specific Relief Act 1963 - To succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove (a) the existence of a valid agreement of sale, (b) that the defendant committed breach of contract; and (c) that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the obligations in terms of the contract. (Para 15)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Harish Kumar v. Amar Nath and Another (Both Dead and Represented Through LR.)
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 924
Coram (Judges)
- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Judgment Date
- Date: August 5, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Anil Rishi v. Gurbakshi Singh (Dead) by LRs. v. Hartar Singh Sangha
- Citation: (2006) 5 SCC 558
- Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha
- Citation: (2010) 10 SCC 512
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India (regarding the Supreme Court’s power to grant special leave to appeal)
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (implied, as the suit is for specific performance)
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (implied, as the case involves civil appellate jurisdiction and procedures)