This article aims to share and take into account the fundamentals and important aspects, while seeking specific execution of ownership and related contracts. “42. A simple interpretation of section 54 of the Statute of Limitations would show that, if the date of implementation of the agreement is set, non-compliance with the agreement by the date of that day would have the opportunity to appeal against a defined benefit within three years of the specified date. However, if such a date is not set, the three-year requirement for filing a lawsuit for a given benefit would begin if the plaintiff noticed that the defendant refused to enforce the agreement. The law recognizes that certain types of contracts cannot be applied specifically. These include contracts: declaration decrees: at some point, a person who is entitled to a particular status or character or who is entitled to a property, but who refuses to enjoy such a right by other parties. Under the law of special relief, he is allowed to act against anyone who denies him his right or is interested in denying him. The Court may issue a declaration decree stating that the person is entitled to title. This decree and the effect of such a declaration are binding only on the parties to the appeal. The court held that the agreement between the parties is vague because the court cannot determine the exact nature of the building or the work by alysing the contractual terms. Therefore, the first condition set out in section 14, paragraph 3, point c) is not met. (ii) the applicant has a vital interest in the performance of the contract and the interest is so high that compensation in funds for non-compliance with the contract does not constitute an adequate discharge; the special benefit is a fair right of appeal granted by the Court to the performance of contractual obligations between the parties. This is a reimbursement of benefits, as opposed to an action for damages for breach, where financial compensation is granted as an exemption in the event of non-compliance with the contractual conditions.
In I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani, the Supreme Court held that, in the event of non-recourse, it was necessary to conclude and declare that a denunciation was unlawful and that the additional discharge could not be granted for the implementation of the denounced agreement: 17. It can be shown that the subsection (1) is an enabling provision. An applicant in a special benefit remedy may apply for additional facilities mentioned in clauses (a) and b). The clause (a) includes, in addition to special benefits, facilities of ownership and division as well as separate assets. The mandate of Section 22, sub-section 22, is that the Tribunal does not grant discharge under clauses (a) and (b) subsection (1), unless it has been the subject of an express request.
It follows that no jurisdiction may grant exemption from ownership of real estate or other property that is the subject of the sale agreement for which a specified benefit is claimed, unless the property is expressly granted. (b) any other exemption to which he may claim, including the repayment of the bonds he has paid or paid, if his right to a special benefit is denied. Similarly, section 20 of the Act in its past provided that the granting of discharge had a margin of appreciation.