Specific Relief Act, 1963 · Chapter IV: Rescission of Contracts
Section 28: Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed
In plain words
If a buyer or tenant who has won a decree for specific performance of a sale or lease of immovable property does not pay within the time allowed, the seller or landlord can apply in the same suit to have the contract rescinded.
- On rescission, the buyer must return possession and may have to pay rents and profits, and the court may order the earnest money returned if justice requires.
- If the buyer does pay in time, the court can order the conveyance or lease to be executed and possession delivered.
- No separate suit lies for any of these reliefs.
- Costs are in the court's discretion.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.
(2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court—
(a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor; and
(b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and, if the justice of the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or the lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract.
(3) If the purchase or lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any of the following reliefs, namely:—
(a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor;
(b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease.
(4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be.
(5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 16 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 28
-
Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors.
Issue arose whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting the original petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the I.A. for deletion of name of the appellant from the array of parties was barred by…
-
Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) through its LRs & Ors.
Suit filed by appellant seeking specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale executed by respondents was allowed on 20-01-2012 and appellant was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration…
-
Balbir Singh & Anr. Etc. v. Baldev Singh (D) Through His Lrs. & Ors. Etc.
The two questions of law fall for consideration in the instant appeal; First, the effect of merger of the trial court’s decree with that of the decree passed by High Court in second appeals; Secondly, whether the…
-
Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr.
Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit…
-
Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Whether the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect to the suit property can be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants warranting the application of the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of…
- Mf Buildcon Pvt Ltd v. Anjali
- P. Shyamala v. Gundlur Masthan
- Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead) v. Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) and Anr.
- G H Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lrs .
- Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar & Ors.
- P. R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi
- Rajinder Kumar v. Shri Kuldeep Singh & Others
- Bhupinder Kumar v. Angrej Singh
- Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs. v. Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs.
- Chanda (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Rattni and Anr.
- Kumar Dhirendra Mullick and Ors. v. Tivoli Park Apartments (P) Ltd.
- Shamsu Suhara Beevi v. G. Alex and Anr.
- P. Purushottam Reddy and Anr. v. M/S Pratap Steels Ltd.
- V.S. Palanichamy Cheitiar Firm v. C. Alagappan and Anr.
- Md. Alimuddin v. Waizuddin and Anr.
- Sardar Mohar Singh Through Power of Attorney Holder, Manjit Singh v. Mangilal @ Mangtya
- Yeshoda and Anr. v. K. Nagarajan
- Sri Samir Sobhan Sanyal v. Tracks Trade Private Ltd. and Ors.
- Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara
- Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors.
- K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P. S. S. Somasundram Chettiar
- K. Kalpana Saraswathi v. P. S. S. Somasundram Chettiar
- Hungerford Investment Trust Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) v. Haridas Mundhra & Others