Section 9: Defences respecting suits for relief based on contract

Specific Relief Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1963

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 9

Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that where any relief is claimed under Chapter II in respect of a contract, the defendant may plead by way of defence any ground which is available to them under any law relating to contracts.

  • All Contract Law Defences Available: Except as otherwise provided in this Act, where any relief is claimed in respect of a contract, the defendant may plead any defence available under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
  • Standard Substantive Defences: Includes incapacity (minority/unsoundness), coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, mutual mistake of fact, void agreements (unlawful consideration/restraint of trade), and frustration under Section 56.
  • Preserves Substantive Law Equality: Ensures that equitable specific performance cannot override fundamental contract invalidities.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Kamal Kumar v. Premlata Joshi, (2019) 3 SCC 704: The Supreme Court authoritatively analyzed Section 9, ruling that a defendant in a specific performance suit is entitled to raise all contract law defences, including absence of consensus ad idem, uncertainty of terms under Section 29 Contract Act, and non-performance of reciprocal promises.
  • B. Santoshamma v. D. Sarala, (2020) 19 SCC 80: Affirmed that the validity of the underlying contract must be proved under the Contract Act before specific performance can be awarded.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When defending a specific performance suit, assert contract law grounds under Section 9 (e.g., breach of essential time condition, frustration, vagueness of property boundaries, or failure of reciprocal obligations under Section 51-54 Contract Act).