Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd VS Katta Sujatha Reddy
(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.20, S.10— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , Art.54— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.47 R.1— Supreme Court Rules (2013) , O.47 R.1— Constitution of India , Art.137— Review – Error apparent on face of record – Suit for specific performance – Finding regarding limitation – In the judgment under review, conclusion drawn by the Court that Clause in agreement provided consequences only for the non-payment of the balance consideration by the purchaser and not for the non-production of certificates by the vendors was an error apparent on the face of record – Court had missed that the Clause provided a consequence for not producing documents within three months, which was cancellation of sale agreements – Conclusion that earlier an agreement was executed which did not materialise was an error apparent on the face of record – Said agreement was between original owners and vendors to which petitioner was not party – Court had erred in interpreting clauses in agreement to mean that a time was fixed for execution of sale agreements – Limitation would be governed by second part of Article 54 – Limitation had set in from the date when petitioner received reply refusing performance – Suit was filed within the period of limitation and was not barred by limitation as found by the Court.
(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.16(c), S.10— Supreme Court Rules (2013) , O.47 R.1— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.47 R.1— Review – Error apparent on face of record – Specific performance – Discretion of court – If purchaser was unwilling to perform contract, he would not have paid nearly 75 % of the sale consideration – With payment of additional sum above earnest money, purchaser had proved his readiness and willingness to perform contract – It could not be concluded that purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of contract merely because balance sale consideration was due to be paid – There was nothing in agreements to sell to rebut statutory presumption that compensation in money was not adequate relief for breach of contract to transfer immovable property – Contrary to the findings recorded in judgment under review, it was a fit case for exercise of discretion to direct specific performance .
(C) Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.52— Lis pendens – Applicability – Sale of suit property was executed after judgment was delivered by Supreme Court and before review petition was registered – Review proceedings were “instituted” within the period of limitation of thirty days – The doctrine of lis pendens becomes applicable at the stage of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by Court – Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act would apply to the third-party purchaser once the sale was executed after the review petition was instituted.
(D) Constitution of India , Art.137— Supreme Court Rules (2013) , O.47 R.1— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.47 R.1— Review – Error apparent on face of record – In review, Supreme Court concluded that in the judgment under review, there were errors apparent on the face of the record regarding suit being barred by limitation and exercise of discretion by court to direct specific performance – Errors were such as would go to the root of the reasoning on both the issues of limitation and specific performance – Judgment under review was recalled – Judgment of High Court was restored.
