{"id":24192,"date":"2026-05-13T06:08:38","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T06:08:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=24192"},"modified":"2026-05-13T06:14:37","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T06:14:37","slug":"section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act Explained: Supreme Court Clarifies Rescission &amp; Extension of Time in 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"two-supreme-court-judgments-one-coherent-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Two_Supreme_Court_Judgments_One_Coherent_Doctrine\"><\/span>Two Supreme Court Judgments, One Coherent Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p>A Comparative &amp; Synthesising Analysis of <strong>Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (2026 INSC 451)<\/strong> and <strong>Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (2026 INSC 463)<\/strong><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Two_Supreme_Court_Judgments_One_Coherent_Doctrine\" >Two Supreme Court Judgments, One Coherent Doctrine<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#A_Section_Ripe_for_Reckoning\" >A Section Ripe for Reckoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#I_The_Statutory_Framework_Section_28_in_Full\" >I. The Statutory Framework: Section 28 in Full<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#II_The_Two_Judgments_Facts_Holdings_and_Core_Ratio\" >II. The Two Judgments: Facts, Holdings and Core Ratio<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#A_Habban_Shah_v_Sheruddin_2026_INSC_451\" >A. Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (2026 INSC 451)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Core_Holdings_%E2%80%94_Habban_Shah\" >Core Holdings \u2014 Habban Shah<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#B_Anand_Narayan_Shukla_v_Jagat_Dhari_2026_INSC_463\" >B. Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (2026 INSC 463)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-4' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Facts-2\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Core_Holdings_%E2%80%94_Anand_Narayan_Shukla\" >Core Holdings \u2014 Anand Narayan Shukla<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#III_Do_the_Two_Judgements_Complement_Each_Other\" >III. Do the Two Judgements Complement Each Other?<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Decree_With_Default_Clause_vs_Decree_Without_Default_Clause\" >Decree With Default Clause vs Decree Without Default Clause<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#IV_Practical_Takeaways_for_Lawyers_and_Litigants\" >IV. Practical Takeaways for Lawyers and Litigants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#IV_Comparative_Chart_Habban_Shah_vs_Anand_Narayan_Shukla\" >IV. Comparative Chart: Habban Shah vs. Anand Narayan Shukla<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#V_Fortification_Supreme_Court_Precedents_In_The_Section_28_Matrix\" >V. Fortification: Supreme Court Precedents In The Section 28 Matrix<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#K_Kalpana_v_V_Kumar_1970_2_SCC_188\" >K. Kalpana v. V. Kumar [(1970) 2 SCC 188]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#B_Chanda_Dead_Through_LRs_v_Rattni_2007_14_SCC_26\" >B. Chanda (Dead) Through LRs v. Rattni [(2007) 14 SCC 26]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#C_PR_Yelumalai_v_NM_Ravi_2015_9_SCC_52\" >C. P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi [(2015) 9 SCC 52]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#D_VS_Palanichamy_v_S_Selvan_AIR_2005_SC_2178_%E2%80%93_Continuing_Readiness\" >D. V.S. Palanichamy v. S. Selvan [AIR 2005 SC 2178] \u2013 Continuing Readiness<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#E_Smt_Periyakkal_v_Smt_Dakshyani_1983_4_SCC_227\" >E. Smt. Periyakkal v. Smt. Dakshyani [(1983) 4 SCC 227]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#F_Prem_Jeevan_v_KS_Venkata_Raman_2017_SCC_OnLine_SC_1555_-_Buyers_Burden\" >F. Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman [(2017) SCC OnLine SC 1555] - Buyer's Burden<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#G_Saradamani_Kandappan_v_S_Rajalakshmi_2011_12_SCC_18\" >G. Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi [(2011) 12 SCC 18]<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#H_In_Re_Cognizance_For_Extension_Of_Limitation_2020_SCC_OnLine_SC_434_%E2%80%94_COVID_And_Force_Majeure\" >H. In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation [2020 SCC OnLine SC 434] \u2014 COVID And Force Majeure<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#VI_The_Synthesised_Doctrine_A_Complete_Section_28_Framework\" >VI. The Synthesised Doctrine: A Complete Section 28 Framework<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Step_1_Examine_The_Decree\" >Step 1: Examine The Decree<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Step_2_If_No_Default_Clause_%E2%80%94_Assess_Extension_Prayer\" >Step 2: If No Default Clause \u2014 Assess Extension Prayer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#Step_3_Equity_Governs_Throughout\" >Step 3: Equity Governs Throughout<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#VII_Master_Reference_Table_Section_28_Case_Law\" >VII. Master Reference Table: Section 28 Case Law<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#VIII_Takeaways_for_Practitioners\" >VIII. Takeaways for Practitioners<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#1_Decree_for_Specific_Performance_Is_Preliminary_in_Character\" >1. Decree for Specific Performance Is Preliminary in Character<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#2_Default_Clause_Renders_Decree_Inexecutable\" >2. Default Clause Renders Decree Inexecutable<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#3_Silent_Decree_Does_Not_Automatically_Result_in_Rescission\" >3. Silent Decree Does Not Automatically Result in Rescission<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#4_Formal_Application_for_Rescission_or_Extension_Not_Mandatory\" >4. Formal Application for Rescission or Extension Not Mandatory<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#5_Test_for_Extension_of_Time\" >5. Test for Extension of Time<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#6_Readiness_and_Willingness_Is_a_Continuing_Obligation\" >6. Readiness and Willingness Is a Continuing Obligation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#7_Onus_Lies_on_Decree-Holder_to_Seek_Extension\" >7. Onus Lies on Decree-Holder to Seek Extension<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#8_Equitable_Considerations_for_Extension\" >8. Equitable Considerations for Extension<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#9_Refund_of_Earnest_Money_on_Rescission\" >9. Refund of Earnest Money on Rescission<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#10_Specific_Performance_Decree_Is_Not_a_Frozen_Option\" >10. Specific Performance Decree Is Not a Frozen Option<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-28-of-the-specific-relief-act-explained-supreme-court-clarifies-rescission-extension-of-time-in-2026\/#IX_Conclusion_Equitys_Architecture_Under_Section_28\" >IX. Conclusion: Equity's Architecture Under Section 28<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"section-28-specific-relief-act-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Section_Ripe_for_Reckoning\"><\/span>A Section Ripe for Reckoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is among the most litigated yet least analytically settled provisions in Indian property law. It is a \u201crescue provision&#8221; \u2013 an equitable escape hatch that rescues the vendor trapped under a lingering decree and simultaneously offers the purchaser a last chance at compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For decades, courts have wrestled with two seemingly opposed questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Does a default automatically rescind the contract?<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Or does the court retain discretion?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>May 2026 has furnished definitive answers through two separate Supreme Court benches, delivered within days of each other. These are not contradictory pronouncements. Read together, <strong>Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (2026 INSC 451)<\/strong> and <strong>Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (2026 INSC 463)<\/strong> create a complete, internally coherent doctrine governing Section 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This article analyses both judgements, places them within the larger canvas of Supreme Court precedent, and extracts actionable takeaways for practitioners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"statutory-framework-section-28-specific-relief-act\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"I_The_Statutory_Framework_Section_28_in_Full\"><\/span>I. The Statutory Framework: Section 28 in Full<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Before proceeding to the judgements, the text of Section 28 bears reproduction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>\u201c28. Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed.\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court\u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until the restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and if the justice of the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(3) If the purchaser or lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any of the following reliefs, namely: \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>The section embodies two distinct powers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The power to rescind on default.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The power to extend time.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Both are housed in the same court that passed the decree, affirming that the court\u2019s jurisdiction survives beyond the decree itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"two-supreme-court-judgments-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"II_The_Two_Judgments_Facts_Holdings_and_Core_Ratio\"><\/span>II. The Two Judgments: Facts, Holdings and Core Ratio<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"habban-shah-v-sheruddin-2026-insc-451\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"A_Habban_Shah_v_Sheruddin_2026_INSC_451\"><\/span>A. Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (2026 INSC 451)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"habban-shah-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial court in 2012 directed Sheruddin (buyer\/decree-holder) to deposit the balance sale consideration within three months. No deposit was made within this window, and no application for extension was filed before the period elapsed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court had upheld the execution. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"core-holdings-habban-shah\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Holdings_%E2%80%94_Habban_Shah\"><\/span>Core Holdings \u2014 Habban Shah<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Where the decree itself contains a default clause specifying that the contract shall stand rescinded or the suit shall stand dismissed on failure to pay within the stipulated period, the decree is rendered inexecutable on default \u2014 without any further application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is not mandatory for the seller to file a separate formal application for rescission. The court retains control and can treat the contract as rescinded as a matter of law and equity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The buyer\u2019s inaction \u2014 absence of a deposit and absence of an extension application \u2014 demonstrates a lack of \u201creadiness and willingness\u201d justifying rescission.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Refund of earnest money (\u20b980,000) with 8% simple interest was directed to prevent unjust enrichment of the seller.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"anand-narayan-shukla-v-jagat-dhari-2026-insc-463\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_Anand_Narayan_Shukla_v_Jagat_Dhari_2026_INSC_463\"><\/span>B. Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (2026 INSC 463)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"anand-narayan-shukla-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts-2\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>A trial court decreed specific performance in 2017, directing the buyer to pay Rs. 57.5 lakh within one month. The buyer issued a notice within time seeking execution of the sale deed, but the balance amount was deposited only on November 26, 2020, pursuant to directions of the execution court itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The execution court dismissed proceedings for non-compliance, and the High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside dismissal, remanding the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"core-holdings-anand-narayan-shukla\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Holdings_%E2%80%94_Anand_Narayan_Shukla\"><\/span>Core Holdings \u2014 Anand Narayan Shukla<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>There is no automatic rescission merely because the purchaser failed to deposit within the period stipulated in the decree, unless the decree itself contains a default\/rescission clause.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Where the decree is silent on the consequence of default, the court retains full discretion to extend time \u2014 even after the stipulated period has expired.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>No prescribed form is required for seeking an extension. An oral prayer made while addressing a rescission application, or during execution, is sufficient and must be treated as an application in the suit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Equity demands examination of the entire conduct of both parties. The pendency of the seller\u2019s own appeal and the COVID-19 lockdown were material factors not considered by the courts below.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court summarised seven governing principles under Section 28 \u2014 a definitive restatement of the law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparison-of-two-supreme-court-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"III_Do_the_Two_Judgements_Complement_Each_Other\"><\/span>III. Do the Two Judgements Complement Each Other?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>At first glance, the two judgements may appear to pull in opposite directions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Habban Shah<\/strong> says a default renders the decree inexecutable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Anand Narayan Shukla<\/strong> says there is no automatic rescission.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>However, this apparent tension is resolved once one reads the critical variable: the nature of the decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"default-clause-vs-no-default-clause\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decree_With_Default_Clause_vs_Decree_Without_Default_Clause\"><\/span>Decree With Default Clause vs Decree Without Default Clause<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Decree With Default Clause<\/th><th>Decree Without Default Clause<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Governed by <strong>Habban Shah<\/strong>.<\/td><td>Governed by <strong>Anand Narayan Shukla<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Non-payment within the stipulated time renders the decree inexecutable.<\/td><td>No automatic rescission occurs merely due to delay.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>No further application by seller is required.<\/td><td>Court retains discretion to extend time.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>The contract stands rescinded as a matter of law.<\/td><td>The court examines equities, conduct of parties, and adequacy of compensation.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The two judgements are thus not alternatives \u2014 they are complementary branches of the same doctrine, each governing a distinct factual configuration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Together, they answer the complete spectrum of Section 28 situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"practical-takeaways-for-lawyers-and-litigants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IV_Practical_Takeaways_for_Lawyers_and_Litigants\"><\/span>IV. Practical Takeaways for Lawyers and Litigants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Always examine whether the decree contains a default clause.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If a default clause exists, failure to comply may automatically render the decree inexecutable.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If the decree is silent, courts retain equitable discretion to extend time.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Applications for extension need not follow any rigid format.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Conduct of parties remains central to Section 28 adjudication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Courts continue to exercise equitable jurisdiction even after the decree.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion-section-28-doctrine\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s May 2026 decisions in <strong>Habban Shah v. Sheruddin<\/strong> and <strong>Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari<\/strong> together provide long-awaited doctrinal clarity on Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The distinction now stands crystallised:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A decree containing a default clause attracts strict consequences.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A decree without such a clause preserves the court\u2019s equitable discretion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>For practitioners, litigants, and courts alike, these rulings establish a coherent framework governing rescission, extension of time, and execution of decrees for specific performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The first question in every Section 28 dispute must, therefore, be the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Does the decree contain a default clause?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The answer determines the governing branch of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"comparative-chart-habban-shah-vs-anand-narayan-shukla\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"IV_Comparative_Chart_Habban_Shah_vs_Anand_Narayan_Shukla\"><\/span>IV. Comparative Chart: Habban Shah vs. Anand Narayan Shukla<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Habban Shah (2026 INSC 451)<\/th><th>Anand Narayan Shukla (2026 INSC 463)<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Bench<\/strong><\/td><td>Justice Dipankar Datta &amp; Justice Manmohan<\/td><td>Justice Manoj Misra &amp; Justice Manmohan<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Core Question<\/strong><\/td><td>Does failure to deposit within the decree period automatically rescind the contract?<\/td><td>Is an extension of time available even after the stipulated period expires?<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Decree Type<\/strong><\/td><td>Decree with express default clause directing rescission on non-compliance<\/td><td>Decree without default clause \u2014 silent on consequence of non-payment<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Outcome on Rescission<\/strong><\/td><td>The decree was rendered inexecutable, the contract was rescinded, and the earnest money refunded with 8% interest<\/td><td>Execution restored; courts directed to examine extension of time afresh with equity<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>On Automatic Rescission<\/strong><\/td><td>YES \u2014 where decree itself contains default\/rescission clause<\/td><td>NO \u2014 no automatic rescission where decree is silent; court retains discretion<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Mandatory Application?<\/strong><\/td><td>No formal application by the seller is required if default clause exists<\/td><td>A court may act even on oral prayer; no prescribed form required<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Role of Conduct<\/strong><\/td><td>Buyer&#8217;s inaction and absence of extension application = lack of readiness and willingness<\/td><td>The buyer&#8217;s conduct examined holistically \u2014 pendency of seller&#8217;s appeal and COVID lockdown weighed<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Equity Principle<\/strong><\/td><td>He who seeks equity must do equity \u2014 buyer&#8217;s delay forfeits equitable right<\/td><td>Equity demands balance \u2014 decree-holder may be compensated by additional terms, not automatic denial<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Section 28 Power<\/strong><\/td><td>Court retains jurisdiction (not functus officio) \u2014 can rescind or extend<\/td><td>Court retains jurisdiction \u2014 must explicitly exercise it after examining equities<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Complementarity<\/strong><\/td><td>Sets the rule: default clause triggers inexecutability<\/td><td>Sets the exception: no default clause preserves judicial discretion to extend<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"fortification-supreme-court-precedents-section-28\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"V_Fortification_Supreme_Court_Precedents_In_The_Section_28_Matrix\"><\/span>V. Fortification: Supreme Court Precedents In The Section 28 Matrix<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The twin 2026 rulings draw their authority from a long line of Supreme Court precedents. The main ones among these are analysed below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"k-kalpana-v-v-kumar\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"K_Kalpana_v_V_Kumar_1970_2_SCC_188\"><\/span>K. Kalpana v. V. Kumar [(1970) 2 SCC 188]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;The court does not become functus officio after passing the decree for specific performance&#8230; the suit remains pending till the final execution of the sale deed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> This is the foundational authority for the &#8216;preliminary decree&#8217; theory. The court retains ancillary jurisdiction throughout. Both 2026 rulings expressly rest on this principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"b-chanda-v-rattni\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"B_Chanda_Dead_Through_LRs_v_Rattni_2007_14_SCC_26\"><\/span>B. Chanda (Dead) Through LRs v. Rattni [(2007) 14 SCC 26]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Extension of time under Section 28 is not for the mere asking. The decree-holder must satisfy the court with a valid reason for the delay; mere filing of an application does not entitle the decree-holder to an extension.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> The onus to establish a valid reason rests on the buyer. Conduct and bona fides are the primary considerations. This case feeds directly into the Anand Narayan Shukla matrix \u2014 the court does not grant extensions mechanically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"pr-yelumalai-v-nm-ravi\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"C_PR_Yelumalai_v_NM_Ravi_2015_9_SCC_52\"><\/span>C. P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi [(2015) 9 SCC 52]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Where the decree is conditional, containing a clause that the suit shall stand dismissed or the contract shall stand rescinded on failure to pay, non-payment within the stipulated window results in the decree becoming inexecutable. In such a case, the court has no discretion to extend time.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> This is the most direct precursor to Habban Shah. It establishes the &#8216;conditional decree = inexecutability&#8217; rule that Habban Shah crystallised and applied. Practitioners must carefully examine the exact language of the decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"vs-palanichamy-v-s-selvan\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"D_VS_Palanichamy_v_S_Selvan_AIR_2005_SC_2178_%E2%80%93_Continuing_Readiness\"><\/span>D. V.S. Palanichamy v. S. Selvan [AIR 2005 SC 2178] \u2013 Continuing Readiness<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;The equity which was in favour of the decree-holder at the time of the decree&#8230; may be lost by his own conduct in not being ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> Readiness and willingness are not a one-time declaration at the filing stage \u2014 they are a continuing obligation that survives through execution. Post-decree passivity erodes this equity and can justify rescission even under an &#8216;unconditional&#8217; decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"smt-periyakkal-v-smt-dakshyani\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"E_Smt_Periyakkal_v_Smt_Dakshyani_1983_4_SCC_227\"><\/span>E. Smt. Periyakkal v. Smt. Dakshyani [(1983) 4 SCC 227]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;The Court&#8217;s power to extend time is not excluded by the fact that the time for payment was embodied in a consent decree. The inherent power to prevent abuse of process remains.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> This case clarifies that even consent decrees with time limits are not immune from judicial modification. The court&#8217;s equitable power endures irrespective of the source of the time stipulation \u2014 unless a forfeiture clause expressly excludes it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"prem-jeevan-v-ks-venkata-raman\">F. Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman [(2017) SCC OnLine SC 1555] &#8211; Buyer&#8217;s Burden<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Unless the time for depositing the purchase price is extended by the court, the court cannot compel the judgement-debtor to execute the sale deed. The burden of seeking extension lies squarely on the decree-holder.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> The buyer cannot passively wait for the seller to trigger Section 28 proceedings and then seek an extension by way of response. Proactive diligence is expected. Non-compliance without an extension application is itself evidence of want of readiness and willingness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"saradamani-kandappan-v-s-rajalakshmi\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"G_Saradamani_Kandappan_v_S_Rajalakshmi_2011_12_SCC_18\"><\/span>G. Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi [(2011) 12 SCC 18]<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;Time is not of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property ordinarily, but where the parties have specified time as essential, or where a court has directed payment within a stated period under a decree, the stipulated period carries significant sanctity, and its violation has serious legal consequences.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> This case contextualises why Section 28 timelines are treated with greater rigour than contractual ones. Court-ordered timelines, unlike contractual timelines, reflect judicial authority, and non-compliance is an affront to that authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"in-re-cognizance-extension-of-limitation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"H_In_Re_Cognizance_For_Extension_Of_Limitation_2020_SCC_OnLine_SC_434_%E2%80%94_COVID_And_Force_Majeure\"><\/span>H. In Re: Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation [2020 SCC OnLine SC 434] \u2014 COVID And Force Majeure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>&#8220;The Supreme Court suo motu excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to March 14, 2021, for the purpose of limitation and compliance with court directions, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Principle:<\/strong> In Anand Narayan Shukla, the Supreme Court specifically noted that COVID-19 lockdowns intervened during execution proceedings. The suo motu COVID orders directly bear on whether a buyer&#8217;s delay during 2020-21 can be treated as wilful or as excused \u2014 a material equitable consideration under Section 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"synthesised-doctrine-section-28-framework\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VI_The_Synthesised_Doctrine_A_Complete_Section_28_Framework\"><\/span>VI. The Synthesised Doctrine: A Complete Section 28 Framework<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Drawing from both 2026 judgements and the anterior case law, the following complete framework emerges for Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"step-1-examine-the-decree\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Step_1_Examine_The_Decree\"><\/span>Step 1: Examine The Decree<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Ask:<\/strong> Does the decree contain a default clause (express rescission\/dismissal on non-payment)?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>If YES<\/strong> \u2192 Habban Shah applies. Non-payment within the stipulated time renders the decree inexecutable as a matter of law. No extension is possible. Earnest money must be refunded.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>If NO<\/strong> \u2192 Anand Narayan Shukla applies. No automatic rescission. Court retains discretion to rescind or extend under Section 28(1).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"step-2-assess-extension-prayer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Step_2_If_No_Default_Clause_%E2%80%94_Assess_Extension_Prayer\"><\/span>Step 2: If No Default Clause \u2014 Assess Extension Prayer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court must evaluate the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether an extension application has been made (formal or oral; before or after expiry of time).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the conduct of the decree-holder discloses an intention to abandon or wilful negligence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the judgement-debtor (seller) can be adequately compensated by imposing additional terms (interest on delayed payment, costs, etc.).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether external factors \u2014 pending appeal by seller, COVID lockdown, or force majeure \u2014 explain the delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"step-3-equity-governs-throughout\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Step_3_Equity_Governs_Throughout\"><\/span>Step 3: Equity Governs Throughout<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether the court rescinds or extends it, it must:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Direct refund of earnest money with appropriate interest on rescission.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consider whether imposing additional conditions can balance equities rather than summarily rescinding.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Examine the overall conduct of both parties \u2014 not just the buyer&#8217;s delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"master-reference-table-section-28-case-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VII_Master_Reference_Table_Section_28_Case_Law\"><\/span>VII. Master Reference Table: Section 28 Case Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Citation<\/th><th>Core Principle<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Habban Shah v. Sheruddin<\/strong><\/td><td>2026 INSC 451<\/td><td>Default clause in decree = inexecutability; no formal rescission application required; earnest money to be refunded with interest.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari<\/strong><\/td><td>2026 INSC 463<\/td><td>No automatic rescission where a decree is silent; the court retains full discretion to extend even post-expiry; equity governs all Section 28 decisions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>K. Kalpana v. V. Kumar<\/strong><\/td><td>(1970) 2 SCC 188<\/td><td>The court is never functus officio after passing a specific performance decree; the suit remains pending till the sale deed is executed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Chanda v. Rattni<\/strong><\/td><td>(2007) 14 SCC 26<\/td><td>Extension is not for the mere asking; the buyer must show bona fide cause; conduct is the primary criterion.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>P.R. Yelumalai v. N.M. Ravi<\/strong><\/td><td>(2015) 9 SCC 52<\/td><td>A conditional decree becomes inexecutable on non-compliance; there is no discretion to extend it where a default clause exists.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>V.S. Palanichamy v. S. Selvan<\/strong><\/td><td>AIR 2005 SC 2178<\/td><td>Readiness and willingness are continuous obligations; post-decree passivity forfeits equitable rights.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Smt. Periyakkal v. Dakshyani<\/strong><\/td><td>(1983) 4 SCC 227<\/td><td>Even consent decrees can be extended; the court&#8217;s inherent equity power is not ousted by the source of the time stipulation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Prem Jeevan v. K.S. Venkata Raman<\/strong><\/td><td>(2017) SCC OnLine<\/td><td>The buyer bears the onus of seeking an extension; passive conduct equals lack of readiness and willingness.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi<\/strong><\/td><td>(2011) 12 SCC 18<\/td><td>Court-ordered timelines carry special sanctity; violation has serious legal consequences.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"takeaways-for-practitioners\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"VIII_Takeaways_for_Practitioners\"><\/span>VIII. Takeaways for Practitioners<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The following distilled takeaways govern Section 28 litigation in the wake of the twin 2026s. Supreme Court rulings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decree-specific-performance-preliminary-character\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Decree_for_Specific_Performance_Is_Preliminary_in_Character\"><\/span>1. Decree for Specific Performance Is Preliminary in Character<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A decree for specific performance is preliminary in character \u2014 the court is never functus officio until the sale deed is actually executed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"default-clause-renders-decree-inexecutable\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Default_Clause_Renders_Decree_Inexecutable\"><\/span>2. Default Clause Renders Decree Inexecutable<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Where the decree contains an express default or rescission clause, failure to pay within the stipulated period renders the decree inexecutable without any further application by the seller (Habban Shah).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"silent-decree-no-automatic-rescission\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Silent_Decree_Does_Not_Automatically_Result_in_Rescission\"><\/span>3. Silent Decree Does Not Automatically Result in Rescission<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Where the decree is silent on consequences of default, there is no automatic rescission\u2014the court retains full discretion to extend time based on equities of the case (Anand Narayan Shukla).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"formal-application-not-mandatory\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Formal_Application_for_Rescission_or_Extension_Not_Mandatory\"><\/span>4. Formal Application for Rescission or Extension Not Mandatory<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>No formal application for rescission or extension is mandatory. Even an oral prayer made during execution proceedings, or one made after expiry of time, is maintainable and must be treated as an application in the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"test-for-extension-of-time\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Test_for_Extension_of_Time\"><\/span>5. Test for Extension of Time<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The test for extension of time is not an explanation of each day&#8217;s delay (as under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) but whether the decree-holder&#8217;s conduct discloses an intention to abandon the contract or wilful negligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"readiness-and-willingness-continuing-obligation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Readiness_and_Willingness_Is_a_Continuing_Obligation\"><\/span>6. Readiness and Willingness Is a Continuing Obligation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Readiness and willingness are continuing obligations \u2014 they must persist not only at the time of filing the suit but also post-decree and during execution (V.S. Palanichamy v. S. Selvan).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"onus-on-decree-holder-to-seek-extension\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"7_Onus_Lies_on_Decree-Holder_to_Seek_Extension\"><\/span>7. Onus Lies on Decree-Holder to Seek Extension<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The onus to seek an extension before the decree expires lies on the decree-holder (buyer). Sitting silent until the seller moves for rescission is hazardous (Chanda v. Rattni).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"equitable-considerations-for-extension\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"8_Equitable_Considerations_for_Extension\"><\/span>8. Equitable Considerations for Extension<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Pendency of the seller&#8217;s own appeal against the decree, and external events such as COVID-19 lockdowns, are valid equitable considerations for extending time (Anand Narayan Shukla).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"refund-of-earnest-money-on-rescission\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"9_Refund_of_Earnest_Money_on_Rescission\"><\/span>9. Refund of Earnest Money on Rescission<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On rescission, the court must ordinarily direct the refund of earnest money (with interest as justice requires) to prevent unjust enrichment of the seller \u2014 as directed in Habban Shah (\u20b980,000 @ 8% p.a. simple interest).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"specific-performance-not-frozen-option\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"10_Specific_Performance_Decree_Is_Not_a_Frozen_Option\"><\/span>10. Specific Performance Decree Is Not a Frozen Option<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Purchasers cannot treat a decree as a &#8220;frozen option&#8221; to be exercised when property prices are favourable \u2014 speculative delay is the precise mischief Section 28 is designed to cure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"conclusion-equitys-architecture-under-section-28\">IX. Conclusion: Equity&#8217;s Architecture Under Section 28<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The twin Supreme Court rulings of May 2026 are judicial architecture \u2014 together, they build a complete, two-tier structure for Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. Habban Shah governs the strict tier, where the decree contains a default clause, the law is categorical and inexorable \u2014 default equals rescission. Anand Narayan Shukla governs the equitable tier: where the decree is silent, the court&#8217;s jurisdiction endures, and equity must be exercised judiciously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These rulings eliminate the twin evils that have long plagued specific performance litigation in India. They prevent the speculative decree holder from using the court&#8217;s imprimatur as a &#8220;frozen option&#8221; \u2014 to be exercised when property prices become favourable, at the seller&#8217;s expense. Simultaneously, they prevent a mechanical, technocratic dismissal of execution proceedings where genuine hardship, judicial delays, or force majeure intervene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The maxim &#8220;He who seeks equity must do equity&#8221; is not a mere platitude in Section 28 jurisprudence \u2013 it is a justiciable standard. The purchaser who has obtained a decree for specific performance must honour the court&#8217;s timeline with the same sanctity as the court&#8217;s own authority. Where he does not, the law will correct the imbalance. Where he has a genuine excuse, equity will hold the door open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For the practising advocate, the actionable takeaway is simple: read the decree. Its language determines the universe of possibilities under Section 28. And act swiftly \u2014 time, as always in equity, is not on the side of those who delay.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Two Supreme Court Judgments, One Coherent Doctrine A Comparative &amp; Synthesising Analysis of Habban Shah v. Sheruddin (2026 INSC 451) and Anand Narayan Shukla v. Jagat Dhari (2026 INSC 463) A Section Ripe for Reckoning Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is among the most litigated yet least analytically settled provisions in Indian<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"featured_media":24267,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[1008,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-24192","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-civil-law","8":"tag-civil-law","9":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/legal-service-india.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24192"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24192\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24270,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24192\/revisions\/24270"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24267"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}