In M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors., the Supreme Court recalled its earlier decision and restored the Telangana High Court’s judgment directing specific performance proportionate to the consideration paid for the sale of a property. The petitioner, having paid 90% of the sale consideration, sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute sale deeds. While the Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred and for lack of willingness, the Telangana High Court found the suit timely and partially decreed it in the petitioner’s favor. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court initially reversed this decision, but on review under Article 137, the Court, relying on Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani, held that the absence of a stipulated time for sale deed execution made the suit timely. It clarified that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act does not require actual payment to prove willingness, and the statutory presumption under Section 10 supports the petitioner’s claim. Rejecting the respondents’ objections on the doctrine of lis pendens, the Court held that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, pendency starts from the date of suit institution and lasts until disposal. Concluding that errors apparent undermined its earlier decision, the Court allowed the review petitions and restored the Telangana High Court’s judgment.
