“38. The Court of Justice has questioned the form of the decree to be taken in the event of concrete performance of the contract when the property is sold to another person by the defendant, i.e.dem owner of the property, and subsequently undergoes a decree on the concrete execution of the contract to transfer the property of recourse to the applicant in accordance with the contract.  16. Personal exculpatory bars – The specific performance of the contract cannot be imposed in favour of a person – It is necessary that the conduct of a plaintiff in the performance of the contract or the attempt to perform the same thing show an unwavering intention to do the job. The Supreme Court ruled in paragraph 12 of its decision Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha that the respondent had to engage in legal action for the practical implementation of an agreement and to prove that he was willing and willing to continuously execute his part of the contract between the date of the contract and the date of the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court held that an agreement contrary to the law could not be obtained by the Tribunal in favour of the applicant in an appeal for a specified benefit, even if the defendant, who also participated in such an illegality, benefits from it. “16. In an appeal against the particular performance of the sale contract, which stipulates that, upon the execution of the deed of sale, the property is handed over to the purchaser, it is implied that the transfer of the property to the property is part of the decree of the special execution of the contract. In this context, however, it is appropriate to refer to Section 22 of the Special Landfill Act 1963. ………. 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.
 Section 20. Replacement of the contract.- (1) Without prejudice to the universality of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 (9 of 1872) and, unless the parties agree otherwise, if the contract is terminated because of the non-compliance of a party`s commitments, the party who suffers from that violation has the option of replacing the benefit with a third party or an agency. , and, the costs and other costs actually incurred, spent or incurred by the party that commits such a violation. On the basis of the aforementioned fundamental principle of the law relating to the facilitation of the specific performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of India recently annulled, in a Jayakantham decision, among other things against Abaykumar, the specific enforcement decree of an agreement to sell a property and granted financial compensation to the buyer (respondent) instead of the exemption from the specific benefit.