← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India9 April 20262026 INSC 339

Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth

Bench of 2 · Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates defending specific performance decrees on second appeal must demonstrate perversity or a substantial question of law — erroneous fact-finding alone will not suffice; and counsel acting for vendors in pending litigation must advise that any pendente lite transfers will be declared non est if the decree is ultimately upheld, regardless of whether the transferees are bona fide purchasers. The judgment also clarifies that a manager or authorised agent with personal knowledge can rebut the adverse inference from a principal's non-appearance in the witness box.

Summary

A civil appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land (79 Kanals 15 Marlas) executed in 1988 for Rs. 15,41,000/-. The original plaintiff (since deceased, represented by heirs) alleged payment of Rs. 7,75,000/- in part consideration and attendance before the Sub-Registrar on the last extended date (30.06.1989) with the balance amount, but the defendants failed to appear. The court of first instance dismissed the specific performance claim for want of proved continuous readiness and willingness, granting only refund of the cheque amount of Rs. 2,75,000/-. The First Appellate Court reversed and decreed specific performance; the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld that decree in Second Appeal. The defendants then filed an SLP — and on the very day leave was granted (08.01.2010), the plaintiff's heirs got the sale deed executed pursuant to the decree. Separately, the defendants had sold 60% of the suit land on 12.02.2009 (before the SLP) and the remaining 40% on 27.02.2025 (during the pendency of the appeal).

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. On the scope of second appeal, the Court reaffirmed that findings of fact — however erroneous — cannot be reopened under Section 100 CPC in the absence of a substantial question of law, relying on Bholaram v. Ameerchand, Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, Kashibai v. Parwatibai, and Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann. The First Appellate Court's findings on extension of time, cash payment to defendant No. 3 (son of the Managing Director, who receipted payments as Director on behalf of the company), and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness were held not perverse.

On the adverse presumption arising from the plaintiff's non-appearance in the witness box, the Court held — distinguishing Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao — that such presumption is merely a rebuttal presumption, and was sufficiently rebutted by PW-4 (the plaintiff's Manager since 1988) whose personal-knowledge testimony corroborated the entire transaction. On equity, the Court noted no evidence of price escalation was placed on record to make specific performance inequitable. Both sets of defendants' sale deeds were declared non est as transfers pendente lite hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the TP Act (following Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd.), and the executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's heirs was maintained.

Key principle

An adverse presumption arising from a party's non-appearance in the witness box is a rebuttal presumption only; it stands displaced where other cogent evidence on record — such as testimony of a manager with personal knowledge of all transactions — sufficiently corroborates the pleaded case. Further, findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC unless they are shown to be perverse or vitiated by a substantial question of law.

Holding

Dismissed — the First Appellate Court's decree of specific performance was upheld, the defendants' sale deeds executed pendente lite declared non est under the doctrine of lis pendens, and the sale deed executed by the plaintiff's heirs pursuant to the decree maintained, as no perversity in the factual findings or substantial question of law warranting second-appellate interference was made out.

Statutes invoked

  • Transfer of Property Act, 1882 · 52
  • CPC · 100

Practice areas

propertycivil
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.