LexM/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. versus KATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 667 : 2024 INSC 861 M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. Review Petition (C) No. 1565 of 2022 in C.A. No. 5822 of 2022 08 November 2024 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,* J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose, whether the judgment of this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction; whether the suit instituted by the petitioner was barred by limitation; and whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art. 137 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review of judgments of Supreme Court – Suit fo specific performance – Suit instituted, if barred by limitation – Agreement to sell land between the original owners and vendors – Sale deed not executed, though the full sale consideration paid – However, execution of irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the vendors – Three years later, vendors executed agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner – Issuance of two legal notices by the petitioner to the respondents calling upon them to execute the sale deed upon receipt of the balance consideration – Thereafter, petitioners filed suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell, which was dismissed – High Court partly allowed the appeal decreeing the suit in favour of the petitioner only to the extent of the consideration paid by the petitioner – In appeal thereagainst, this Court held that the suit was barred by limitation – Review petition filed seeking review of the judgment – Exercise of review jurisdiction, if warranted: * Author 668 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Held: Petitioner had notice that performance is refused only by the reply dated 14.04.2000 to the first legal notice of the petitioner – Limitation prescribed by Art. 54 sets in from the date when the petitioner received the reply refusing performance – Irrespective of whether the suit was instituted on 9.08.2002 (as concluded by trial court) or 30.07.2002 (as concluded by the High Court), it was within limitation – Further, doctrine of lis pendens applies where the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective state – Review proceedings were “instituted” within the period of limitation of thirty days – Doctrine of lis pendens kicks in at the stage of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by this Court – Thus, s. 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 before this Court – Any transfer made during the pendency is subject to the final result of the litigation – Furthermore, even assuming that the grant of relief of specific performance continued to be discretionary to a suit instituted before the date of the amendment to s. 10 of the Specific Relief Act, this Court erred in its analysis of whether the Court ought to use its discretionary power in this matter – It cannot be concluded that the petitioner was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract merely because the balance sale consideration was due to be paid – Petitioner with the payment of the additional sum above the earnest money, has proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract – On application of the facts to the principles in ss. 10 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, it is a fit case for this Court to exercise its discretion to direct specific performance – Thus, in view of the errors apparent, both on the issues of limitation and specific performance, the judgment of this Court recalled and that of the High Court restored. [Paras 30, 31, 41, 42, 49-52] Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 52 – Doctrine of lis pendens – Application of – Conditions to be fulfilled: Held: There must be a pending suit or proceeding; suit or proceeding must be pending in a competent court; suit or proceeding must not be collusive; right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in question in the suit or proceeding; property must be transferred by a party to the litigation; and the alienation must affect the rights of any other party to the dispute – Doctrine of lis pendens that s. 52 encapsulates, bars the transfer of a suit [2024] 11 S.C.R. 669 M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. property duri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.