GOBIND RAM vs GIAN CHAND

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decree for specific performance of a contract under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, rejecting the appellant's plea for compensation instead. The Court emphasized that specific performance is not automatic and must consider the facts and circumstances of each case, as established in Parakunnan Veetill Joseph's Son Matthew vs. Nedu'mbera Kuruvifa's Son. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to require the respondent to pay an additional sum to mitigate hardship to the appellant.