Was the sale agreement contingent?

Yes. The sale would go through only after the seller, an aged widow, found suitable accommodation. Until then, specific performance could not be forced.

Could the buyer compel registration on a fixed date?

No. Forcing registration before the condition was met would be inequitable. The Court treated the agreement as contingent.

What remedy did the buyer have meanwhile?

Refund of earnest money with interest was available under the contract if registration became legally impossible or difficult.

What principle of the ICA applies?

Contingent contracts (Section 31) and fairness in specific performance—courts avoid compelling acts before essential conditions are satisfied.

Deokabai Smt v. Uttam JT

1993 (4) SC 374 — Contingent Contract • Specific Performance • Suitable Accommodation

Supreme Court of India 1993 1993 (4) SC 374 Contract • Specific Relief ~7 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

An elderly widow agreed to sell her portion of a house but needed another home first. The buyer pushed for immediate registration and sued for specific performance. The Supreme Court held: this agreement was contingent on the seller finding suitable accommodation. Until that happened, she could not be forced to hand over her home.

Issues

Was the sale agreement contingent on the seller first finding a suitable place to live?
Could the buyer compel execution and registration before that condition was met?

Rules

Contingent contracts (ICA, s.31): A promise depending on a future uncertain event becomes enforceable only when that event happens.
Where the agreement itself recognises difficulty/impossibility in registration and promises refund with interest, courts read it as a condition to be satisfied first.
Specific performance will not be ordered if it causes unfair hardship or ignores an essential condition.

Here, the seller’s need to secure another home was central; forcing sale earlier would be inequitable.

Facts — Timeline

Agreement → Permission → Buyer’s Notice → Suit → Appeals → SC

18 Jan 1979: Aged widow Deokabai agrees to sell her portion to Uttam; ₹5,000 earnest paid (price ₹48,000).

19 Jan 1979: Buyer also contracts for the other portion with a third party (later registered).

3 Mar 1979: Seller seeks permission from the Competent Authority, Nagpur; May 1979 permission granted.

Key Clause: If registration becomes difficult/legally impossible, seller will refund earnest with interest.

9 Jul 1979: Buyer notices seller to appear at Registrar at 11 a.m.; she does not appear—she has not found another house.

26 Jul 1979: Buyer sues for specific performance.

Trial: Specific performance granted → HC: SP denied; refund with interest → LPA: SP decreed → SC: Seller wins.

Timeline: elderly seller, permission, notice, suit for specific performance, Supreme Court decision

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant (Seller: Deokabai)

Sale was contingent on finding a suitable home; rushing registration is unfair.
Contract recognises difficulties in registration and provides refund with interest.
Specific performance would cause hardship to an aged widow living with family.

Respondent (Buyer: Uttam)

He was ready and willing; bought stamps, prepared drafts, sent notice.
Wants specific performance based on agreement and permission granted.
Refund clause should not defeat his right to get the sale deed.

Judgment

For the Appellant (Seller)

The Supreme Court held that the agreement was contingent on the seller securing suitable accommodation. She could not be compelled to register the sale before meeting this condition. The buyer’s claim for specific performance failed; the seller’s position was upheld.

Judgment concept: contingent contract condition must happen before performance

Ratio (Legal Principle)

Where the agreement and circumstances show that execution depends on an essential condition—here, finding another home—the contract is contingent. Courts will not order specific performance until the condition occurs; refund with interest remains the protective remedy.

Why It Matters

Shows how contingent contracts work in real property sales.
Protects vulnerable sellers from being forced out before they can relocate.
Guides drafting: write the condition clearly and specify the refund pathway.

Key Takeaways

Registration cannot be forced before a stated condition is met.
Refund-with-interest clauses signal contingency and fairness.
Specific performance is discretionary; hardship matters.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “HOUSE BEFORE DEED.”

Spot the Condition: Need a new home?
Match the Clause: Refund/registration difficulty?
Decide Remedy: Wait or refund; no forced sale yet.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the sale contingent on the seller finding suitable accommodation, barring immediate specific performance?

Rule

Contingent contracts (s.31 ICA) become enforceable only when the condition occurs; specific performance avoids hardship.

Application

Contract acknowledged difficulty in registration and promised refund; seller had not found another home.

Conclusion

Agreement is contingent; no specific performance until condition is satisfied.

Glossary

Contingent Contract: A promise that depends on a future uncertain event.
Specific Performance: Court order to perform the contract as agreed; discretionary and equity-based.
Earnest Money: Advance paid to show seriousness; may be refundable as per contract terms.