2024 INSC 861 Page 1 of 38

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

Review Petition (C) No. 1565 of 2022 in C.A. No. 5822 of 2022

M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner

Versus

Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors. …Respondents

And With

Review Petition (C) No. 1839 of 2024 in C.A. No. 5823 of 2022

Page 2 of 38

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI

Table of Contents

A. Background ..................................................................................................... 3

B. Judgments of the Trial Court, High Court and this Court ................................ 7

C. Submissions .................................................................................................. 16

D. Grounds for exercising review jurisdiction .................................................... 17

E. Limitation ....................................................................................................... 19

F. Specific performance .................................................................................... 25

G. Lis pendens ............................................................................................... 32

H. Relief ......................................................................................................... 36

1. The petitioner has instituted proceedings under Article 137 of the

Constitution read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013

seeking a review of the judgment of a three- Judge Bench of this Court dated 25

August 2022. By the judgment, this Court allowed the appeal against the judgment

of the High Court of Telangana dated 23 April 2021 by which the suit for specific

performance was partially decreed by directing the registration of the suit property

in favour of the petitioner proportionate to the extent of the consideration paid. The

issue for the consideration of this Court is whether the judgment of this Court dated

25 August 2022 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record which

warrants the exercise of the review jurisdiction.

PART A

Page 3 of 38

A. Background

2. On 19 March 1994, Shri Debbad Narayana, Shri Vishweswara Rao

(represented by the tenth to twelfth respondents who are his legal representatives),

the third respondent, fourth respondent and fifth respondent (“ original owners”)

entered into an agreement to sell a land admeasuring 127.29 acs to the first,

second, sixth, seventh and eight respondents (“vendors”). On the date of the

agreement, possession to the extent of 65.23 acs was delivered to the vendors.

Upon the payment of the balance sale consideration, the possession of the entire

property was delivered. A sale deed was not executed, though the full sale

consideration was paid. However, on 28 March 1994, an irrevocable power of

attorney was executed in favour of the vendors.

3. On 26 March 1997, the vendors executed an agreement to sell in favour of

the petitioner. This agreement will be referred to as the “first agreement to sell”. By

the agreement, the first and the second respondents offered to alienate the

scheduled property of 38.15 acs

1

for a sale consideration of Rs 38,37,500. The

agreement notes that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs 5,30,000 in cash and Rs

6,00,000 in cheque as advance and earnest money. The relevant clauses of the

agreement to sell are extracted below:

“3. The purchaser shall pay a sum of Rs. 27,07,200/-

(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs seven thousand five

1

“All that the agriculture land bearing Sy. Nos. 301 part, 302, 303, 304 part totally admeasuring Ac. 38-

15 guntas situated at Budwel village, the then Hyderabad West Tq., now Rajendernagar Mandar, R.R.

District, which is bounded by as under:-

East: Sy. No. 381, 380 and 326

West: Sy. No. 54 Village boundary of Irsalgandi

North: Sy. No. 381, 380 and 326

South: Sy. No. 300 and 306”

PART A

Page 4 of 38

hundred only) towards the balance sale

consideration within three months from this date to

the parties of the second part herein and if the

purchaser does not honour to pay the balance sale

consideration of Rs. 27,07,500/- (Rupees Twenty

Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand and Five Hundred

Only) within a period of three months from the date

of this date, the advance amount paid will be

forfeited and this agreement of sale will be cancelled

if the vendors fail to furnish the non- encumbrance

certificate, income tax exemption certificate,

agricultural certificates to the purchaser within three

months.

[…]

6. The parties of the first part and the parties of the

second part herein undertake that they will execute

a registered sale deed or deeds or any other nature

of documents as desired by the purchaser in favour

of the purchaser or its nominee or nominees, after

receiving the balance sale consideration.

[…]

20. The parties of the first part and the second part

herein undertake to execute the documents either

registered or un- registered as desired by the

purchaser after receiving the balance sale

consideration to the extent to the schedule property.

[…]

21. The parties of the first part are not at all

concerned to the sale consideration agreed by the

parties of the second part herein with the purchaser

as already they received the agreed sale

consideration from the parties of the second part

herein as per the agreement dated 19

th

March 1994.

[…]

23. The parties of the second part herein undertake

on any pretext they will not make any claim for

enhancing the agreed sale consideration.”

(emphasis supplied)

PART A

Page 5 of 38

4. The first agreement to sell refers to the “original owners” as the “parties of

the first part”. The agreement refers to the “vendors” as the “parties to the second

part”. The petitioner is referred to as the “purchaser”. It must also be noted that the

recital to the first sale agreement states that the “parties of the first part and parties

1,3,5 and 6 of the parties of the second part” have been made a party to the

agreement only to ensure that there is no “cloud over the title”.

5. On 27 March 1997, an agreement to sell was executed by the first and

second respondents in favour of the petitioner to sell the scheduled property of

1.33 Acs

2

for a consideration of Rs 1,82,500. This agreement will be referred to as

the second agreement to sell.

6. On 8 February 2000, the petitioner issued a legal notice (“first legal notice”)

to the first and second respondents calling upon them to receive the balance sale

consideration and execute the sale deed. On 14 April 2000, the second respondent

responded to the legal notice claiming to not have received the part -payment and

refusing to execute a sale deed in the petitioner’s favour. On 6 July 2002, the

petitioner issued another legal notice (“second legal notice” ) to all the

respondents calling upon them to execute the sale deed upon the receipt of the

balance consideration. The first and second respondents replied to the legal notice

by a letter dated 22 July 2002 claiming that (a) the execution is barred by limitation;

(b) they were ready with the documents required under Clause 3 of the first

2

“All that the agricultural land bearing Sy. Nos. 304 part totally admeasuring Ac. 1.33 guntas situated

at Budwel village, the then Hyderabad West Tq. Now Rajendernagar mandal, R.R. District, which is

bounded by as under:-

East: Sy. No. 308

West: Sy. No. 3030

North: Sy. No. 326

South: Sy. No. 305”.

PART A

Page 6 of 38

agreement to sell but the petitioner was not willing to pay the balance

consideration; and (c) the first legal notice dated 8 February 2000 was ante-dated

to overcome limitation. The first legal notice was posted on 30 March 2000 by

registered post.

7. On 9 August 2002, the petitioner instituted a suit seeking a decree for

specific performance of the first and the second agreements to sell. The case of

the petitioner in the suit was:

a. Rs.34,70,000 towards the sale consideration for the first agreement and Rs

10,850 as advance for the second agreement was paid. Thus, of the

aggregate sale consideration of Rs. 40,20,000, Rs, 34,80,850 was paid and

only a balance of Rs 5,39 ,150 remained outstanding;

b. The possession of the suit land was delivered under the agreement; and

c. The petitioner has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the

agreements. Both the agreements required the respondents to furnish the

petitioner with necessary permissions and certificates, which they failed to do.

8. The petitioner prayed for a decree for specific performance upon the receipt

of the balance sale consideration of Rs 5,39,150. The petitioner sought alternative

reliefs of (a) delivery of possession of the suit land; or (b) a direction to refund the

consideration of Rs. 34,80 ,850 paid with interest of 36% per annum.

PART B

Page 7 of 38

B. Judgments of the Trial Court, High Court and this Court

9. By a judgment dated 12 December 2010, the Additional District Judge

dismissed the suit instituted by the petitioner. The Trial Court held that the petitioner

is not entitled to a decree or specific performance for the following reasons:

a. The respondents did not dispute the execution of the two agreements to sell.

There is also no dispute over the identity of the property. The petitioner is only

required to prove that he was always willing to perform his part of the

agreement;

b. It can be inferred from the evidence on record that the petitioner does not

have possession of the suit property and that a false plea that possession has

been delivered has been made because:

i. The alternative prayer of the petitioner in the suit was to put him in

possession of the property if, for any reason, the Court concludes that

the possession of the suit property was not delivered. The petitioner

would not have sought the alternative prayer if he were confident about

being in possession of the suit property;

ii.The petitioner did not plead when he was put in possession of the

property. PW-1 (the petitioner) was not able to respond to a question

during cross-examination on when he was put in possession of property;

iii.Though PW-2 (the owner of the land adjacent to the suit property)

deposed that the petitioner developed the suit property by fencing it and

constructing internal roads, these aspects did not find a mention in either

PART B

Page 8 of 38

the deposition of PW-1 or the plaint. Further, the photographs of the suit

property also did not reflect these developments;

iv.The sale agreements also did not conclusively indicate that the petitioner

was put in possession of the suit property;

v.The first legal notice issued by the petitioner does not mention that

possession was delivered. The claim is only made in the second legal

notice; and

vi.The draft sale deed that the petitioner allegedly prepared and sent to the

respondents also does not mention that possession was delivered.

c. A cheque of Rs 5,40,000 issued by the petitioner towards

consideration was dishonoured. So, the petitioner paid Rs 29,30,000 towards

the sale consideration and not Rs 34,70,000, as claimed by him . The

petitioner made a false plea that he had paid Rs 34,70,000. The table

indicating the payments made by the petitioner is below:

26.3.1997 Rs. 5,40,000 (cheque dated

2.4.1997 which was

dishonoured)

26.3.1997 Rs. 11,30,000 (Rs. 5,30,00 by

cash and Rs. 6,00,00 by cheque)

26.3.1997 Rs, 13,00,000 by cheque

9.4.1997 Rs. 5,00,000 by cheque

PART B

Page 9 of 38

d. Clause 3 of the sale agreements states that the petitioner is required to pay

the balance consideration and the respondents must furnish certificates within

three months. The clause prescribes a consequence for non- payment, that

the agreement would be cancelled. However, the clause does not prescribe

any consequence if the respondents fail to furnish the necessary certificates

within three months. It cannot be concluded that time is of the essence only

because the agreement requires the petitioner to pay the balance

consideration within three months. The respondents had not obtained the

permissions and certifications required under Clause 3 and they did not inform

the petitioner about any steps taken to obtain them. The cross-examination of

DW-1 (first respondent) indicates this. Thus, time is not of essence in the

agreement;

e. The petitioner claims that he issued the first legal notice on 8 February 2000.

However, the postal cover and postal certificate indicate that it was registered

on 31 March 2000. Thus, the petitioner ante- dated the legal notice to

overcome limitation ;

f. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance

if a false plea is made. In this case, the petitioner made three false pleas ;

g. The petitioner has been unable to prove that he was willing to perform his part

of the contract within three years from the sale agreements and specific ally,

within three months according to the agreement. If the petitioner was able to

perform his part, a notice would have been issued earlier or the balance would

have been deposited in the bank;

PART B

Page 10 of 38

h. The first part of Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 applies

to the facts of the case. The petitioner was required to pay the balance

consideration within three months from the date of the sale agreement. The

suit should have been filed on or before 26 June 2000 (three years from the

date fixed for the performance). However, the suit was filed on 9 August 2002,

nearly two years after the limitation expired . Thus, the suit was time barred;

and

i. The suit was barred by time for recovery of the advance amount in terms of

Article 47 of Schedule to the Limitation Act.

10. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court against the

judgment of the Additional District Judge. By a judgment dated 23 April 2021, the

High Court partly allowed the appeal for the following reasons:

a. The Trial Court did not distinguish between the time fixed for payment of sale

consideration and the time for the performance of the contract. The first part

of Clause 3 of the agreements only fixes the time for the payment of sale

consideration. The performance of the contract hinges on the respondents

furnishing the documents. The agreements do not fix a time for the

performance of the contract. Thus, the second part of Article 54 of the

schedule to the Limitation Act applies. The limitation begins from the date of

refusal of performance. The suit was filed on 30 July 200 2, which is within

three months of 14 April 2000 (the date when the respondents’ responded to

the first legal notice) . Even if the first legal notice issued by the petitioner was

ante-dated, it would not affect the merits of the issue since limitation ought to

PART B

Page 11 of 38

be calculated from the date of refusal. Further, the conclusion that the

petitioner did not file a suit immediately after the issuance of the second legal

notice is erroneous. The second legal notice was issued on 6 July 2002. The

suit was filed on 30 July 2002. The suit was numbered on 9 August 2002;

b. It cannot be concluded that possession was not delivered merely because

there was no mention of it in the sale agreements or the first legal notice. The

finding of the Trial Court on the aspect of possession and that the petitioner

made a false plea in this regard is erroneous. Even otherwise, the issue of

whether the petitioner has possession of the suit property is immaterial for the

relief of specific performance. The delivery of possession is inherent and

ancillary to the relief of specific performance under Section 55 of the Transfer

of Property Act 1882. (Relied on Babula l v. Hajarilal Kishorilal

3

);

c. The respondents received a substantial amount of the sale consideration of

Rs. 38,80,850 out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 40,20,000. The

respondents failed to provide the certificates. The first respondent admitted

that she received the amount in her cross- examination though she had denied

the same earlier in her written statement and chief examination. The sale

deed could not be executed because of the fault of the respondents. It cannot

be concluded that the petitioner did not approach the respondents for the

payment of the balance consideration merely because he could not depose

the particulars of when he approached them. Further, though the first and the

second respondents pleaded that they had obtained the necessary

3

1982 (1) SCC 525

PART B

Page 12 of 38

documentation as required by Clause 3 of the sale agreement in both the

written statement and evidence, this version was denied during the cross-

examination of DW-1 and DW-2 (husband of DW-1). The Trial Court

concluded that the respondents were not ready with the certifications. This

finding was not assailed by the counsel for the respondents ;

d. The petitioner would not benefit from not performing the remainder of the

contract when he already paid 90 percent of the sale consideration. The

petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application to deposit the balance sale

consideration of Rs. 5,39 ,150 which was allowed. The petitioner has shown

bona fides by depositing the balance consideration. Thus, the oral evidence

of the petitioner (PW-1) that he approached the respondents to fulfil the

contract cannot be disbelieved. The petitioner has proven his readiness and

willingness to perform the contract;

e. The conclusion of the Trial Court that the petitioner made a false plea that he

paid Rs. 34,70,000 when he has only paid Rs, 29,30,000 is erroneous. DW -1

in her deposition admitted the payments of the petitioner and admitted that

the balance amount of Rs.5,39,150 was deposited in the Court in her cross-

examination. Upon the dishonour of the cheque dated 2 April 1997, the

plaintiff issued a Demand Draft of Rs. 5,00,000 on 9 April 1997;

f. Merely because the plaintiff did not institute a suit immediately after the reply

to the first legal notice in 2000, it cannot be inferred that he was not willing to

perform his part of the contract. The suit was filed within limitation (relied on

PART B

Page 13 of 38

R Lakshmi Kantham v. Devaraji (2019) 8 SCC 62; Mademsetty

Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao (AIR 1965 SC 1405));

g. Time is not of essence to the contract for the reasons recorded in the Trial

Court’s judgment; and

h. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 was amended in 2018, by which

the relief of specific performance is no longer a discretionary power. Section

10 is a procedural provision. All procedural laws are retrospective. The

amended provision applies to all pending proceedings.

The High Court directed that since the petitioner had paid 90 percent of the sale

consideration, the suit for specific performance can be decreed in favour of the

petitioner to the extent proportionate to the consideration paid. The High Court

further directed that the amount of Rs, 5,39,150 deposited by the petitioner

pursuant to the Interlocutory Application must be refunded along with any interest

that is accrued.

11. Proceedings under Article 136 were instituted against the judgment of the

High Court. By a judgment dated 25 August 2022, a three- Judge Bench consisting

of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli

allowed the appeal. This Court referred to the judgment in Chand Rani v. Kamal

Rani

4

, in which it was held that there is no presumption that time is of essence in

a contract for a sale of immovable property and the Court may infer if it was of

essence based on (a) the express terms of the contract; (b) the nature of the

4

(1993) 1 SCC 519

PART B

Page 14 of 38

property; and (c) surrounding circumstances such as the object of the contract.

Relying on the judgment, this Court held that in the facts of the present case, time

is of essence for the following reasons:

a. Both the vendors’ and the purchaser’s obligations in Clause 3 of the sale

agreements were required to be completed within the stipulated time period

of three months. The consequences of (in)actions are different. There are no

consequences if the vendors do not produce the certificates and permissions.

However, the clause spells out a consequence of forfeiture of the advance

amount if the purchaser does not pay the balance consideration; and

b. According to Clause 21 of the sale agreements, the parties had entered into

an earlier agreement to sell dated 19 March 1994. This agreement did not

materialize and the agreed price was no longer applicable. Fresh agreements

were entered into “to provide a last opportunity to successfully enter into a

sale-purchase agreement.” This intention of the parties is also clear from

Clause 23 of the agreement.

12. This Court held that the suit was barred by limitation since the suit had to

be instituted within three years of the time fixed for completing the performance

(which was three months from the sale agreements). The three years ended in

June 2000 and the suit ought to have been instituted within that period to not be

barred by limitation.

PART B

Page 15 of 38

13. This Court also held the following on merits:

a. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act is not procedural but substantive. Thus,

the 2018 amendment to the provision does not apply retrospectively to

pending proceedings;

b. Under the unamended provision, the Court’s power to grant specific

performance was discretionary . This discretion ought not to be exercised

arbitrarily

5

. The purchaser must be vigilant to enforce his right. Clause 3 of

the agreements was drafted to provide “one last opportunity for the purchaser

to make good their lapse which had happened on the earlier occasion.” The

time for performance of the contract, including payment lasted till June 1997;

c. The plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the contract. The purchaser

did not voluntarily adhere to the time stipulated under the contract. However,

the vendors fulfilled their obligation to provide documentation. DW-1 averred

that all documents were available and that the petitioner entered into an

agreement only after he was satisfied with the title. S pecific performance

cannot be enforced in favour of a party who has not proven that he was always

ready and willing to perform his part of the contract;

d. The Trial Court’s reasoning on the question of whether the petitioner has

possession of the suit property is correct; and

5

Saradamani kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi (2011) 12 SCC 18

PART C

Page 16 of 38

e. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to situations where the

inability to perform the contract arises out of the party’s own conduct.

6

In the

instant case, there was no inability on the part of the parties to perform the

contract. The petitioner was not willing to perform the contract after entering

into a “time- sensitive agreement”.

14. This Court directed the respondents/vendors to repay the sale consideration

received with an interest of 7.5 percent from the date on which the payment was

made till the time the entire amount is paid back. The payment was directed to be

made within six months.

15. The petitioner filed a review petition against the judgment of this Court.

C. Submissions

16. Mr Neeraj Kishan Kaul, senior counsel submitted that the judgment of this

Court suffers from the following apparent errors that warrants the exercise of the

review jurisdiction:

a. Clause 21 of the agreements to sell refers to the sale agreement executed by

the original owners in favour of the vendors in 1994. Though petitioner was

not a party to that agreement, this court has proceeded on the incorrect

premise that the 1994 agreement was between the parties;

b. The Trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, concluded that the

vendors did not produce certificates and permissions as required by Clause

6

Jaswinder Kaur v. Gurmeet Singh, (2017) 12 SCC 810

PART D

Page 17 of 38

3 of the sale agreements. This finding was not challenged before the High

Court. This Court wrongly records that the vendors produced the certificates

without referring to the direct evidence on record to the contrary; and

c. Clause 3 does not state that the agreement will be cancelled if the petitioner

does not pay the balance amount within three months.

17. Mr Rakesh Dwivedi and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel for the

respondents argued that this is not a fit case for the exercise of review jurisdiction.

It was submitted that the judgment of this Court was sound, independent of the

(mis)reference to the 1994 agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that

the suit property was alienated after the judgment of this Court and before the

review petition was registered. It was argued that the doctrine of lis pendens does

not apply when the petition was in the registry in a defective state.

D. Grounds for exercising review jurisdiction

18. Before proceeding with the analysis, we will refer to the grounds for

exercising review jurisdiction. Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 states

that an application for review must be filed on the grounds mentioned in Order

XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). Order XLVII Rule 1 of

CPC lays down the following grounds for review:

a. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise

of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by

them at the time the decree was passed;

b. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and

PART D

Page 18 of 38

c. Any other sufficient reason.

19. This Court has laid down the following principles on the exercise of review

jurisdiction

7

:

a. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined

to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC;

b. Error on the face of record must be an error which must strike one on a mere

perusal and must not on a long drawn process;

c. The power of review must not be exercised on the ground that the decision

was erroneous on merits;

d. The phrase “any other sufficient reason” means a reason that is analogous to

the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; and

e. The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for

review.

20. Let us proceed to analyse if the judgment of this Court satisfies the grounds

for review. The issues which arose for the consideration of this Court were two-

fold: first, whether the suit instituted by the petitioner was barred by limitation; and

second, whether the suit for specific performance must be decreed. The finding

that time was of essence to the contract was central to the Court’s reasoning on

both the issues.

7

See Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185; Karnail Singh v. State of

Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 961; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; Sanjay Kumar

Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362

PART E

Page 19 of 38

E. Limitation

21. The Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 prescribes the period of limitation.

Article 54 of the Schedule prescribes the period of limitation for a suit for specific

performance of a contract:

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period

begins to run

54. For specific

performance of a contract

Three years The date fixed for the

performance, or, if no such

date is fixed, when the

plaintiff has notice that

performance is refused.

22. The provision has two parts. The first part deals with situations where the

contract fixes a date for performance. The period of limitation of three years runs

from the date fixed for completion of performance. The second part deals with

situations where the contract does not fix a date for the performance of the contract.

In such situations, the period of limitation runs from the date when the plaintiff has

notice that the defendant has refused performance.

23. The issue for consideration was whether the sale agreements fix a date for

the performance of the agreement . This Court referred to C lauses 3, 21, and 23 to

hold that the agreement fixes a date of three months for performance. This Court

interpreted Clause 3 as follows:

“31. At the outset, this Court has perused Clause 3

of the agreements, which is in two parts. The first

part provides for the purchaser’s obligations, while

the second part details the obligation of the vendors

to provide the requisite certificates. Although both

the obligations were required to be completed within

PART E

Page 20 of 38

the stipulated period of three months, there is a

substantive difference between these two sets of

obligations. The obligation upon the vendors

concerned was production of certain certificates,

such as income tax exemption certificate and

agriculture certificate. No consequences were

spelt out for non -performance of such

obligations. Whereas the obligation on the

purchaser, was to make the complete payment of the

sale consideration within three months. The clause

further mandates forfeiture of the advance

amount if the payment obligation is not met

within the time period stipulated therein.”

(emphasis supplied)

24. This Court observed that Clause 3 casts two obligations: one on the

petitioner/purchaser and the other on the respondents/vendors. To this extent, we

find no error. However, the conclusion that the Clause only provides consequences

for the non-payment of the balance consideration by the purchaser and not for the

non-production of certificates by the vendors is an error apparent on the face of

the record. The judgment correctly notes that Clause 3 prescribes that the advance

amount paid will be forfeited if the balance is not paid by the petitioner in three

months. However, this Court missed that the Clause also provides a consequence

for not producing the documents within three months, which is the cancellation of

the sale agreements. This Court seems to have missed the phrase “and this

agreement of sale will be cancelled..”. If this Court had read “and this agreement

of sale will be cancelled” as a consequence of the non-fulfilment of the obligation

cast on the purchaser, it could still be argued that it was a probable (though in our

opinion, erroneous) view and not an error apparent on the face of the record.

However, the judgment completely disregards the phrase “and this agreement of

sale will be cancelled” in Clause 3. In paragraph 32 of the judgement, this Court

PART E

Page 21 of 38

further notes that non- payment of the balance consideration would lead to a severe

consequence of “forfeiture”:

“33. Coming to the aforesaid indicators, the

language of the agreements makes it clear that

severe consequences of forfeiture would ensue if the

payment is not made within three months of the date

of the agreements.”

25. Clause 3 has two parts. The first part casts an obligation on the

purchaser/petitioner and prescribes consequences for it, that is, the forfeiture of

the advance paid. The word “and” disjuncts this part from the second part which

casts an obligation on the vendors. The second part prescribes the consequence

if the vendors do not furnish the documents.

26. This Court further noted that the “language of the agreements” ensures

severe consequences of forfeiture if the balance consideration is not paid within

three months. This Court further referred to Clauses 21 and 23 to substantiate this

interpretation:

“32. […] It may be noted that as per Clause 21, the

parties had entered into an earlier agreement to sell

dated 10.03.1994, which did not materialize and

accordingly the agreed price therein was no longer

applicable. It is in this context that the fresh

agreements were entered into between the parties,

so as to provide a last opportunity for them to

successfully enter into a sale- purchase agreement.

The aforesaid intention of the parties is also made

clear through Clause 23 of the agreement to sell,

which reads as under:

[…]

33. The aforesaid clause clearly freezes any

enhancement of the agreed sale consideration,

which cannot be independent of a fixed time period.

A contrary interpretation would render the contract

commercially unreasonable and unworkable. The

PART E

Page 22 of 38

moratorium on the enhancement of rates prescribed

under Clause 23 should be interpreted to be

predicated on a fixed time and be executable within

a reasonable period. The same should not be utilized

to render the commercial wisdom between the

parties otiose, which is inherent in drafting such

clauses.”

27. To recall, Clause 21 stipulates that the parties of the “first part” are not

concerned with the sale consideration as they have already received the agreed

sale consideration from the parties of the “second part” by an agreement dated 19

March 1994. This Court has interpreted the reference to the agreement dated 19

March 1994 as the agreement between the petitioner and the respondents which

did not materialise. This is an obvious and apparent error on the face of the record.

The agreements refer to the original owners from whom the vendors purchased

the suit property as parties of the “first part”. The vendors are referred to as parties

to the “second part”. The agreement dated 19 March 1994 is the agreement to sell

that was executed by the original owners in favour of the vendors. The petitioner

was not a party to this agreement. The 1997 agreements in favour of the petitioner

were executed by the original owners in addition to the vendors because though

the vendors were put in possession of the suit property after the sale agreement,

a sale deed was not executed. Instead, an irrevocable power of attorney was

executed in favour of the vendors. Though only the first and the second

respondents offered to alienate the suit property to the petitioner, the agreement is

executed by the original owners and vendors other than the first and the second

respondent as well to prevent any litigation in the future. The relevant clauses of

the recital to the agreement dated 26 March 1997 are extracted below:

PART E

Page 23 of 38

“4. Whereas parties of the Second part herein

have entered into an agreement of sale with the

parties of the first part herein dated 19 March 1994.

5. Whereas the parties of the second part herein

have purchased from the parties of the first part to

an extent of Articles 127- 129 guntas only in lad

bearing Sy.No. 301 part 302, 303, 304, 305, 306,

307, 308 and 309 for a valuable consideration and

on the date of the agreement possession was

delivered to an extent of Articles 65- 23 guntas and it

was specifically agreed that an irrevocable general

power of attorney will be executed through a

registered document in the names nominated by the

parties of the second part herein, as such parties of

the first part herein have executed and irrevocable

power of attorney on 28 March 1994 which was

registered on 30

th

day of April 1994.

6. Whereas parties of the second part herein

have paid the full sale consideration to the parties of

the first part and the parties of the first part herein

have also delivered the possession of the remaining

extent of Ac. 50- 00 gts and to that effect admitting

and acknowledging the same the parties of the first

part herein have passed receipts and also got

executed another regd. Irrevocable power of

attorney in favour of the parties of the second part

herein, as such the parties of the second part herein

become the possessors of the total extent of Ac. 115-

29 guntas.

7. Whereas parties 2 and 4 of the second part

herein have offered to alienate and extent of Ac. 38-

15 guntas in land bearing Sy. No. 301 part, 302,303

and 304 part out of the total extent of Ac. 127- 29

guntas @ Rs 1, 00, 000/- per acre which comes to a

total sum of Rs. 38, 37, 500/- (Rupees Thirty Eight

Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand give hundred only)

and infact, parties of the first part as well parties

1,3,5 and 6 of the parties of the second part herein

have no concern either for the agreed sale

consideration or for the extent under alienation but

they have been made as parties to this agreement

not to have a cloud over the title and also to get

convey the title in a better way along with the rights

for not to give any scope for the litigation in future on

any pretext and the parties 1,3,5, and 6 of the parties

of the second par t herein shall be at liberty either to

enjoy or to alienate to their choice of the extent of

their share of land situated at Budwel village,

Rajendernagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.”

PART E

Page 24 of 38

28. Thus, the conclusion that Clause 21 indicates that an agreement was

executed in 1994 with the petitioner which did not materialise is an error apparent

on the face of the record. The argument of the respondent that the Court concluded

that time is of essence independent of the interpretation of Clause 21, in our

opinion, does not hold merit. This Court placed considerable weightage on Clause

21. This Court referred to Clauses 3, 21 and 23 to interpret if time was of essence

in the backdrop of the principles laid down in Chand Rani (supra). To recall, in

Chand Rani (supra), this Court held there is no presumption that time is of essence

in a contract for a sale of immovable property and the Court may infer if it was of

essence based on (a) express terms of the contract; (b) nature of the property; and

(c) surrounding circumstances such as the object of the contract. Clause 21 was

interpreted to cast light upon the surrounding circumstances/the object of the

contract and was crucial to its decision.

29. Having concluded that the interpretation of Clauses 3 and 21 of the Sale

Agreements was erroneous, there is nothing in Clause 23 alone that could be

interpreted to prescribe a time for the performance of the contract. Further, the

judgment also does not take note of Clause 6 of the agreements to sell which

provides that a sale deed will be executed after receiving the balance sale

consideration. This clause does not prescribe any time period within which the sale

deed must be executed. Another question is whether Clause 3 can be

independently interpreted to prescribe a date for the performance of contract. The

consequence of the non-payment of the balance consideration in terms of Clause

3 is the forfeiture of the advance amount paid by the purchaser and not all the

PART F

Page 25 of 38

consideration paid by the end of three months. The consequence is not that the

sale deed shall not be executed.

30. For the above reasons, Clauses 3, 21 and 23 cannot be interpreted to mean

that a time is fixed for the execution of the sale agreements . Thus, the limitation is

governed by the second part of Article 54. The limitation of three years prescribed

by the second part of Article 54 runs from the date when the plaintiff has notice that

performance has been refused. The petitioner/plaintiff had notice that performance

is refused only by the reply dated 14 April 2000 to the first legal notice of the

petitioner. A portion of the reply is extracted below:

“That our client along with Smt. Kotta Sujatha Reddy

have not received the alleged amount of Rs.

34,80,850/- as part sale consideration of the alleged

agreement.

That our client has no any liability to execute the sale

deed in your clients favour on any account under the

alleged agreement of sale deed 26.3.1997 or

27.3.1997. As such the execution of any sale deed

in your client’s favour does not arise.”

31. Thus, the limitation prescribed by Article 54 sets in from the date when the

petitioner received the above reply refusing performance . Irrespective of whether

the suit was instituted on 9 August 2002 (as concluded by the Trial Court) or 30

July 2002 (as concluded by the High Court), it was within limitation.

F. Specific performance

32. The next issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for specific

performance. This Court held that the 2008 amendment to Section 10 of the

Specific Relief Act does not apply retrospectively and decided the matter based on

PART F

Page 26 of 38

Section 10 before the amendment. Section 10, before the amendment, conferred

courts with the discretion to provide a decree for specific performance. In exercise

of review jurisdiction, we must not disturb a finding unless there is an error apparent

on the face of record. Even assuming that the grant of relief of specific

performance continued to be discretionary to a suit instituted before the date of the

amendment, we are of the opinion that this Court committed a grave error in its

analysis of whether the Court ought to use its discretionary power in this matter .

Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act before the 2018 amendment read as follows:

“10. Cases in which specific performance of contract

enforceable.- Except as otherwise provided in this

Chapter, the specific performance of any contract

may, in the discretion of the court, be enforced-

(a) when there exists no standard for ascertaining

actual damage caused by the non- performance of

the act agreed to be done; or

(b) when the act agreed to be done is such that

compensation in money for its non- performance

would not afford adequate relief.

Explanation.- Unless and until the contrary is proved,

the court shall presume

(i) that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable

property cannot be adequately relieved by

compensation in money; and

(ii) that the breach of a contract to transfer movable

property can be so relieved except in the following

cases:

(a) where the property is not an ordinary article of

commerce, or is of special value of interest to the

plaintiff, or consists of goods which are not easily

obtainable in the market;

(b) where the property is held by the defendant as

the agent or trustee of the plaintiff.”

PART F

Page 27 of 38

33. This Court referred to the judgment in Saradamani Kandappan v.

Rajalakshmi

8

, which laid down the factors that the Courts must consider while

deciding whether to exercise the discretion of decreeing specific performance of a

contract:

“43. Till the issue is considered in an appropriate

case, we can only reiterate what has been

suggested in K.S. Vidyanadam [(1997) 3 SCC 1] :

(i) The courts, while exercising discretion in suits for

specific performance, should bear in mind that when

the parties prescribe a time/period, for taking certain

steps or for completion of the transaction, that must

have some significance and therefore

time/period prescribed cannot be ignored.

(ii) The courts will apply greater scrutiny and

strictness when considering whether the purchaser

was “ready and willing” to perform his part of the

contract.

(iii) Every suit for specific performance need not be

decreed merely because it is filed within the period

of limitation by ignoring the time- limits stipulated in

the agreement. The courts will also “frown” upon

suits which are not filed immediately after the

breach/refusal. The fact that limitation is three years

does not mean that a purchaser can wait for 1 or 2

years to file a suit and obtain specific performance.

The three- year period is intended to assist the

purchasers in special cases, as for example, where

the major part of the consideration has been paid to

the vendor and possession has been delivered in

part-performance, where equity shifts in favour of the

purchaser.”

(emphasis supplied)

34. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act states that specific performance of

a contract cannot be enforced in favour of the person who fails to prove that he is

ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be

performed by him, other than the terms which are prevented or waived by the

8

(2011) 12 SCC 18

PART F

Page 28 of 38

defendant. The explanation to clause (c) states that it is not essential for the plaintiff

to tender money to the defendant where the contract involves the payment of

money, unless directed by court. Section 16(c) reads as follows:

“16. Personal bars to relief.- Specific performance of

a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-

[…]

(c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has

always been ready and willing to perform the

essential terms of the contract which are to be

performed by him, other than terms the performance

of which has been prevented or waived by the

defendant.

Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (c),-

(i) where a contract involved the payment of money,

it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to

the defendant or to deposit in court any money

except when so directed by the court;”

35. This Court concluded that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform

his part (as required by Section 16(c)) because the balance sale consideration was

not paid within three months as required by Clause 3:

“58. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the purchaser

ought to have been vigilant in the case at hand to enforce

his right and could not have been lackadaisical in his

approach. From the facts, it is clear that the purchaser

had entered into an agreement way back on

26/27/.03.1997, which had a clause mandating

completion of the contract by payment of the remaining

consideration within three months. The aforesaid clause

was drafted, as alluded to earlier, for providing one

last opportunity for the purchaser to make good their

lapse which had happened on the earlier occasion. In

this context, the time for performance of the contract

including the payment lasted till the month of June 1997.”

(emphasis supplied)

PART F

Page 29 of 38

36. It is clear from the above extract that this Court held that the petitioner was

not ready and willing to perform the contract in which time was of essence. The

conclusion that time was of essence was derived based on an interpretation of

Clause 3 read with Clause 21. The reasoning based on which this Court held that

the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform the contract falls in view of the

conclusion that the interpretation of Clause 21 and Clause 3 by this Court is

erroneous because of the factual misconception and omission, respectively.

37. In paragraph 67 of the judgment, this Court also held that the first and the

second respondents were ready and willing to perform their obligation of providing

the documents:

“67. On the aspect of the vendor’s obligation to

provide requisite and necessary documents, DW1

(Smt. Katta Sujatha Reddy), has averred that all the

documents were available. It is only after the

purchaser was satisfied about the sound title that he

entered into the agreement to sell.”

38. There is an error apparent on the face of the record in the factual finding

recorded above. The Trial Court recorded that the respondents did not produce the

records. The Trial Court expressly noted that DW-1 initially stated that they

produced the certificates. However, during the cross -examination, DWs 1-3

deposed that they had not obtained and produced these documents . The

observations of the Trial Court in this regard are extracted below:

“70. […] It is in the written statement and as well as

in the reply lawyers notice as if the defendants got

secured these documents. But, the fact remains and

undisputed is, the defendant have not obtained such

certificates and they have not furnished them to the

plaintiff and they have not even informed to the

plaintiff what are the steps taken by them in obtaining

PART F

Page 30 of 38

these documents and the proceedings taken by

them in that context. But it is in the pleading and

in the evidence of DW-1 at the earliest part of

time that they have obtained these documents.

But from the later part of evidence of DW-1 by

filing further chief examination affidavit and from

the cross-examination of DW-1 to 3 it is made out

the defendants have not obtained and they are

not informed to the plaintiff and that they have

secured such certificates.”

(emphasis supplied)

39. In the appeal, the High Court categorically noted that the above finding of

the trial court was not challenged:

“40. It is also pertinent to note about categorical

admission by the defendants 6 & 8 that they have

not obtained certificates and documents for

completing the sale transaction. But the defendants

6 & 8 pleaded that they have obtained necessary

documents both in the written statements and also

in the evidence. In the cross -examination that

version of D.W.1 is dismantled and trial Court

also comes to the conclusion that the

defendants without obtaining documents and

certificates simply pleaded that they are ready

with the certificates. However, that finding is not

attacked in this appeal, which goes to show that

the defendants are at fault in not obtaining

certificates for fulfilling their part of the contract,

though, the plaintiff paid 90% of the sale

consideration requesting the defendants 6 & 8 to

receive balance sale consideration.”

(emphasis supplied)

40. The judgment of this Court in paragraph 67 only refers to the deposition of

DW-1 without referring to her cross- examination or the fact that the respondents

did not challenge the finding of the Trial Court on this aspect. This is another error

apparent on the face of the record.

PART F

Page 31 of 38

41. Having held that the basis of the reasoning of this Court on whether the

petitioner was willing to perform the contract has an error apparent on the face of

the record, we are required to decide the issue of whether the petitioner was ready

and willing to perform the contract. We are of the considered opinion that the

petitioner was ready and willing to perform the contract in terms of Section 16(c) of

the Specific Relief Act. The first agreement to sell noted that the purchaser paid a

sum of Rs.11,30,00 as earnest money. Subsequently, the petitioner paid Rs.

13,00,000 on the same day by cheque and paid another Rs. 5,00,000 by Demand

Draft on 9 April 1997. If the petitioner was unwilling to perform the contract, he

would not have paid nearly 75 percent of the sale consideration. Thus, the

petitioner with the payment of the additional sum above the earnest money, has

proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Further, this aspect

must be analysed in the backdrop of the explanation to Section 16(c) of the Specific

Relief Act which states that if the contract involves the payment of money, it is not

necessary that the plaintiff actually tenders the money. I t 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.

42. Section 10, before the amendment in 2018 stated that the Court can

exercise its discretion to award specific performance of contract where (a) there

exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by the non-

performance of the act agreed to be done; or (b) when the act agreed to be done

is such that compensation in money for its non- performance would not afford

adequate relief. The Explanation provided that unless there is anything to the

contrary, the court shall presume that the compensation in money is not an

PART G

Page 32 of 38

adequate relief for the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property. There

is nothing in the agreements to sell to rebut this statutory presumption. On an

application of the facts to the principles in Sections 10 and 16 of the Specific Relief

Act, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for this Court to exercise

its discretion to direct specific performance.

G. Lis pendens

43. The respondents submitted that a sale of the suit property was executed

after the judgment of this Court (25 August 2022) and before the review petition

was registered (13 December 2022). It was submitted that the third party is in

possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

44. On 23 September 2022, the petitioner filed a review petition against the

judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022. The review was filed within thirty

days, the prescribed period of limitation in terms of Order XLVII Rule 2 of the

Supreme Court Rules 2013. On 14 October 2022, the Registry sent a letter to the

petitioner asking him to cure defects. On 11 November 2022, the petitioner cured

the defects. On 13 December 2022, the review petition was registered. On 27

January 2023, the counsel for the petitioner sought six weeks to bring some

documents on record. On 1 March 2023, the matter was listed before a three- Judge

Bench of Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and one of us (Justice DY

Chandrachud). The matter was not taken up. By an order dated 31 August 2023,

Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed the application for listing the review petition in

open court and issued notice, returnable in six weeks. Justice Hima Kohli did not

agree and was of the view that the review petition be dismissed. Justice Narasimha

PART G

Page 33 of 38

who was the third member of the Bench recused from the matter for personal

reasons. Subsequently, Justice Manoj Misra was nominated as the third member

of the Bench. By an order dated 26 September 2024, notice was issued in the

review petition.

45. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 states that during the

pendency in any court of any suit in which any right to immovable property is

directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise

dealt with by any party to the suit or proceedings. The explanation to the provision

states that for the purposes of the Section, the pendency of a suit or proceedings

shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or

institution of the proceeding in a Court, and shall continue until the suit or

proceeding is disposed by a “final decree or order” and complete satisfaction of the

order is obtained, unless it has become unobtainable by reason of the expiry of

any period of limitation. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows:

“52. During the pendency in any Court having

authority within the limits of India excluding the State

of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such

limits by the Central Government of any suit or

proceeding which is not collusive and in which

any right to immovable property is directly and

specifically in question, the property cannot be

transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to

the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of

any other party thereto under any decree or order

which may be made therein, except under the

authority of the Court and on such terms as it

may impose.

Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the

pendency of a suit or proceeding shall be deemed to

commence from the date of the presentation of the

plaint or the institution of the proceeding in a Court

of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the

PART G

Page 34 of 38

suit or proceeding has been disposed of by a

final decree or order and complete satisfaction

or discharge of such decree or order has been

obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of

the expiration of any period of limitation prescribed

for the execution thereof by any law for the time

being in force.”

(emphasis supplied)

46. The following conditions ought to be fulfilled for the doctrine of lis pendens

to apply:

a. There must be a pending suit or proceeding;

b. The suit or proceeding must be pending in a competent court;

c. The suit or proceeding must not be collusive

9

;

d. The right to immovable property must be directly and specifically in

question in the suit or proceeding;

e. The property must be transferred by a party to the litigation; and

f. The alienation must affect the rights of any other party to the dispute.

10

47. In short, the doctrine of lis pendens that Section 52 of the Transfer of

Property Act encapsulates, bars the transfer of a suit property during the pendency

of litigation. The only exception to the principle is when it is transferred under the

authority of the court and on terms imposed by it. Where one of the parties to the

suit transfers the suit property (or a part of it) to a third- party, the latter is bound by

9

A collusive suit is not a real suit but a sham where the claim that is put forward if fictitious. See Nagubai

Ammal v. B Shama Rao, 1956 SCC 321

10

See Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403

PART G

Page 35 of 38

the result of the proceedings even if he did not have notice of the suit or proceeding.

The principle on which this doctrine rests was explained by Lord Turner in Bellamy

v. Sabine

11

as follows:

“It is, as I think, a doctrine common to the courts both

of Law and Equity and rests, as I apprehend, upon

this foundation that it would plainly be impossible

that any action or suit could be brought to a

successful termination, if alienations pendente lite

were permitted to prevail. The plaintiff would be

liable in every case to be defeated by the defendants

alienating before the judgment or decree, and would

be driven to commence his proceedings de novo,

subject again to be defeated by the same course of

proceedings.”

48. Justice M H Beg in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami

12

set out the content

of the doctrine of lis pendens as follows:

“14. The background of the provision set out above

was indicated by one of us (Beg, J.,) in Jayaram

Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami [(1972) 2 SCC 200, 217 :

AIR 1973 SC 569] . There, the following definition of

the lis pendens from Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol.

LIV, p. 570) was cited:

“Lis pendens literally means a pending suit, and the

doctrine of lis pendens has been defined as the

jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires

over property involved in a suit pending the

continuance of the action, and until final judgment

therein.”

It was observed there:

“Expositions of the doctrine indicate that the need for

it arises from the very nature of the jurisdiction of

Courts and their control over the subject-matter of

litigation so that parties litigating before it may not

remove any part of the subject-matter outside the

power of the Court to deal with it and thus make the

proceedings infructuous.”

11

(1857) 1 De G&J 566

12

AIR 1973 SC 569

PART H

Page 36 of 38

49. The purpose of lis pendens is to ensure that the process of the court is not

subverted and rendered infructuous. In the absence of the doctrine of lis pendens,

a defendant could defeat the purpose of the suit by alienating the suit property.

This purpose of the provision is clearly elucidated in the explanation clause to

Section 52 which defines “pendency”. Amending Act 20 of 1929 substituted the

word “pendency” in place of “active prosecution”. The Amending Act also included

the Explanation defining the expression “pendency of suit or proceeding”.

“Pendency” is defined to commence from the “date of institution” until the

“disposal”. The argument of the respondents that the doctrine of lis pendens does

not apply because the petition for review was lying in the registry in a defective

state cannot be accepted. The review proceedings were “instituted” within the

period of limitation of thirty days. The doctrine of lis pendens kicks in at the stage

of “institution” and not at the stage when notice is issued by this Court. Thus,

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 before this

Court. Any transfer that is made during the pendency is subject to the final result

of the litigation.

13

H. Relief

50. The High Court relied on Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act to decree

specific performance only to the extent of the consideration paid by the petitioner.

The directions of the High Court are extracted below:

“89. […], this court is of the considered opinion that

by exercising power under Section 12, in order to

13

See GT Girish v. Y Subba Raju, 2022 8 SCR 991

PART H

Page 37 of 38

meet the ends of justice, suit can be decreed for

specific performance only to the extent of 90% of the

amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendants 6 & 8

towards sale consideration.

90. In the result, Appeal Suit is allowed in part

directing the defendants 6 & 8 to register the suit

schedule property in favour of the plaintiff

proportionate to the extent of amount paid by the

plaintiff i.e., 90% of the total sale consideration[…].

91. It is needless to state that the Suit Schedule Land

is required to be divided by metes and bounds in the

execution proceedings by the Execution Court, as

indicating above i.e., 90% and 10% with the

assistance of an advocate commissioner and the

90% of the part of the Suit Schedule Land, so

determined, shall be registered in favour of the

Appellant in accordance with the law.”

51. On appeal, this Court held that it was not a fit case to exercise discretion to

grant relief in terms of Section 12 because the purchaser breached an essential

condition of the agreements to sell and the suit was filed beyond limitation:

“77. […] In this case, the petitioner breached the

essential condition of the contract, which altogether

disentitles him to claim specific performance. There

is no doubt that the claim of purchaser is hit by delay

and laches on their part as they did not take

appropriate measures within the stipulated time and

filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years […]

78. Therefore, we do not think that it is an

appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser

in terms of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act 1963

as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay,

laches and limitation.”

52. Having concluded that the errors apparent on the face of the record

identified above go to the root of the reasoning on both the issues of limitation and

specific performance, we recall the judgment of this Court dated 25 August 2022.

The judgment of the High Court dated 23 April 2021 is restored.

PART H

Page 38 of 38

53. The review petitions are allowed in the above terms.

54. Pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

…….……………………………………CJI

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

….….………………………………………J

[J. B. Pardiwala]

….….………………………………………J

[Manoj Misra]

New Delhi;

November 08, 2024