“37. As is apparent from the prayer requested in the original appeal, the applicant did not request a request for a declaration to declare the termination of the purchase contract as an error of law. In the absence of such a prayer on the part of the applicant, the initial appeal he filed in court is not upheld for the performance of the special benefit with respect to the application for ownership provided on the basis of the sale agreement and the resulting adoption of the decree for permanent omission.┬áIt is not uncommon for persons claiming the title of one of the contracting parties to become a necessary party in the course of a legal action or even before a party creates third-party rights. Those allegedly involved in legal action depend on the facts of a case, according to Regulation I, Rule 10, of the 1908 Civil Procedure Code and Section 19[24] of the Act, which provides an indication. The Supreme Court in Kasturi[25] concisely defined the principles to be considered, that is, who should be a necessary party to an appeal for compensation. “24. The term “availability and availability” was already, in many cases, an object of interpretation prior to its inclusion in Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. When considering the question of how and how, the applicant is required to prove his financial availability in order to allow him to claim some performance of the contract/agreement, the Privy Council in a high-order case, which was approved by the Indian Courts (Bombay) at the Bank of India Ltd. v. Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy[17] , approved the opinion of Chagla, Actg.C.J., and stated in particular that, on the basis of the aforementioned basic principle of the law relating to the facilitation of the specific performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision of Jayakantham, among others against Abaykumar, set aside the decree of the specific execution of an agreement to sell a property and granted financial compensation to the buyer (respondent) instead of the special benefit. It is common for a contract to be terminated, resulting in legal action on the benefit. In such cases, the non-request to quash the termination would be fatal for the performance, because without a reasonable exemption to quash the termination, it would be presumed that the applicant accepted the same thing and then could not bring an action in the performance of a contract considered by his conduct to be over.

The statute of limitations for a special benefit use is three years from the date set for the benefit or if no date is set, if the applicant has noticed that the benefit is denied. “31. However, we agree with Mr. Lalit that it was not necessary, for the above purpose, to keep the full amount of consideration available and to prove it.” The Supreme Court found that during the course of the trial, the complainant presented the Tribunal with documents indicating that the value of the property was six lakhs and thirty thousand rupees on November 20, 2006. The applicant also recorded in the minutes a document indicating the value of the property as of April 1, 1999. The Supreme Court found that, although the above aspects were taken into account by the Tribunal and the first Court of Appeal, they were not accepted, while granting discharge of a certain benefit in favour of the respondent.