Specific Relief Act 1963

This question appears to reference Section 17 of the Specific Relief Act (likely Indian law), which states that contracts to sell or let property by someone without title are not specifically enforceable. The phrasing in option A matches this legal principle.

Under Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, an obligation is defined as every duty enforceable by law. Option C, 'every duty enforceable by law', most closely matches this definition. The key word is 'enforceable' - obligations are duties that can be legally enforced.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 applies to the whole of India except the state of Jammu & Kashmir. This territorial limitation was common to many central enactments before Article 370's abrogation. Option A is incorrect because it does not account for the J&K exception.

The Specific Relief Act uses 'trust' in its general sense AND includes obligations under Chapter IX of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Section 3 of the Trusts Act defines trust comprehensively. Chapter IX deals with obligations in the nature of trust, which the Specific Relief Act incorporates by reference.

The Specific Relief Act, 1963 defines all three terms mentioned: obligation (Section 2(e)), trustee (Section 2(f)), and trust (Section 2(g) via reference to Trusts Act). Since all terms are actually defined, 'None of these' is correct - none of the options A-C are undefined.

The Specific Relief Act is a central law, and Section 1(3) authorizes the Central Government (not state governments) to notify the commencement date in the Official Gazette. This follows the standard pattern for central legislation where implementation dates are often left to executive notification.

Under the Specific Relief Act, 'trustee' is defined to include every person holding trust property. The definition is functional - it focuses on who holds the property rather than formal designation. A tenant, even if in possession, is not holding property 'in trust' - tenants have possessory rights, not fiduciary duties.

Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act specifically deals with 'Recovery of specific immovable property.' It provides a remedy for persons entitled to possession of specific immovable property. Section 6 (the dispossession remedy) is a separate provision for a different situation.

Section 7 of the Specific Relief Act provides for 'Recovery of specific movable property.' This is distinct from Section 5 which covers immovable property. Movable property recovery follows different procedures under the Civil Procedure Code.

Recovery of specific movable property under Section 7 follows the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The CPC provides the detailed mechanism for filing suits, recovery processes, and execution of decrees. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) applies to criminal matters, not civil property disputes.

Section 6 suits (by persons dispossessed without consent) face two key restrictions: a 6-month limitation period from the date of dispossession, and they cannot be maintained against the government. Both conditions must be satisfied - the time bar protects against stale claims, and government immunity prevents sovereign interference challenges.

Section 14 lists contracts that are NOT specifically enforceable, including contracts requiring constant supervision, involving personal skill/finesse, or where damages are an adequate remedy. This creates exceptions to the general rule of specific performance. Section 10 (option B) and Section 12 for trusts (option C) are separate provisions about when specific performance IS available.

Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act enumerates cases where specific performance of contracts IS enforceable. It establishes the positive rule for when courts can order specific performance - primarily for contracts involving transfer of property, where monetary compensation would be inadequate. Section 14 (option B) is the exception list, not the rule.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that courts grant selectively. It is refused when monetary compensation is adequate (A), when the contract requires continuous supervision due to minute details or personal qualifications (B), or when the contract is determinable in nature (C). All three scenarios represent valid bars to specific performance.

The Specific Relief Act allows multiple parties to seek specific performance. Any party to the contract (A), their representative in interest or principal (B), and in certain cases tenants for life exercising powers (C) may all obtain this remedy when eligible.

Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enumerates the persons who may obtain specific performance of contracts. It establishes eligibility criteria for seeking this equitable remedy.

Specific performance cannot be obtained by someone who could not recover damages for breach (A), or by someone who has become incapable of performance or violated essential terms (B). Section 16 bars relief to those who have materially impaired the contract's performance.

Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act grants courts discretionary power to decree specific performance. The court may refuse relief if it would be unfair or impractical, even if the contract is valid.

Specific performance may be enforced against the original party to the contract (A), persons claiming under them subsequently (B), and persons claiming under titles the plaintiff could have enforced (C). The remedy binds successors and representatives.

A vendor cannot enforce specific performance if they knew they had no title (A), or if they cannot provide title free from reasonable doubt despite believing they had good title (B). Section 19 requires the vendor to be able to convey clear title.

Section 21 allows plaintiffs seeking specific performance of immovable property transfers to also claim possession or partition (A), and alternative relief including refund of earnest money if specific performance is refused (B). This prevents multiplicity of proceedings.

Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act deals with rectification of instruments. It allows courts to correct written instruments that do not reflect the true intention of the parties due to fraud or mistake.

Rescission may be sought when the contract is voidable or terminable by the plaintiff (A), and rectification may be claimed in any suit involving rights under the instrument (B). Section 19-20 establish these parallel remedies.

Section 27 provides the circumstances under which courts may adjudicate rescission or refuse it. It sets forth the principles for when this cancellation remedy will be granted versus when it will be denied.