Courtroom Chronicles

REVIEW OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN PROPERTY AGREEMENTS

by | Nov 11, 2024

ASPECTS DETAILS
Case Title M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors.
Introduction The case pertains to a review petition filed by M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. challenging a previous Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their claim for specific performance of a sale agreement due to limitations and failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform.
Factual Background In 1994, the original owners sold 127.29 acres of land to the respondents (vendors), who in turn sold parts to the petitioner. Two agreements (dated 26 March 1997 and 27 March 1997) for specific performance of land transfer were signed between the petitioner and respondents. Issues arose due to alleged non-payment by the petitioner and the respondents’ failure to provide essential documents.
Legal Issues
  1. Whether the agreements stipulated a time for performance.
  2. Whether the petitioner was willing and able to complete the contract.
  3. Whether the case was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
  4. Applicability of Section 10 and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act for specific performance.
  5. Impact of the doctrine of lis pendens on the third-party transfer during review.
Applicable Law
  • Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
  • Sections 10 and 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
  • Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (doctrine of lis pendens).
  • Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Analysis The Court examined Clause 3, concluding it fixed a three-month time for performance but noted errors in interpreting conditions related to document production by respondents. This affected the determination of petitioner’s readiness to perform. The Court found earlier rulings failed to address key evidence showing the respondents had not fulfilled their contractual obligations. Reviewing Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court emphasized its discretion under pre-2018 amendment standards but noted petitioner’s substantial payment towards the sale. The doctrine of lis pendens was upheld, barring third-party rights to the property during litigation.
Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, recalled the prior decision, and reinstated the High Court’s judgment, which granted specific performance proportionate to the amount paid. The Court ordered a refund of balance amounts plus interest. The doctrine of lis pendens applied to prevent third-party property claims.
Current Scenario The case was remanded to the Execution Court to facilitate the division of property by metes and bounds, enabling the registration of the proportionate part in favor of the petitioner as per the High Court’s directions.

CASE SUMMARY -The case states about a review petition filed by M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. for specific performance of land sale agreements. Originally, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioner, stating that the contract was time-barred and petitioner was not ready to perform the contract. Upon review, the Court found errors in its interpretation of the agreement clauses regarding payment and document production. The Supreme Court recalled its previous judgement, upheld the High Court’s decision for specific performance proportionate to the petitioner’s payment, and applied the doctrine of lis pendens to prevent third-party claims.

“Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.”

 

SOURCE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

READ ALSO – ENHANCED COMPENSATION FOR CHILDHOOD ACCIDENT VICTIM WITH LIFELONG DISABILITY

Written By Nancy Sharma

I am Nancy Mahavir Sharma, a passionate legal writer and , a judicial service aspirant who is interested in legal researching and writing. I have completed Latin Legum Magister degree. I have been writing from past few years and I am excited to share my legal thoughts and opinions here. I believe that everyone has the potential to make a difference.

Related Posts