The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010), has dismissed an appeal by a vendor and upheld a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dating back to 1988. A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale affirmed that findings of fact recorded by a First Appellate Court cannot be disturbed in a Second Appeal unless they are perverse.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an unregistered agreement to sell dated July 18, 1988. One Anil Kishore Seth (now represented by his heirs, the respondents) agreed to purchase agricultural land admeasuring 79 Kanals 15 Marlas from Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd. (the appellant) for a total consideration of ₹15,41,000/-.
The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be executed by December 15, 1988, which was later extended to June 30, 1989. While the appellants admitted receiving ₹2,75,000/- via cheque, they denied receiving an additional ₹5,00,000/- in cash allegedly paid to the Managing Director’s son (Defendant No. 3).
The Court of First Instance originally dismissed the suit for specific performance on December 10, 1999, citing a failure to prove continuous readiness and willingness. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this on April 23, 2003, holding that the plaintiff had paid ₹7,75,000/- and was ready to perform his part. This decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a Second Appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants (Defendants): Senior Counsel Shri K. Parameshwar argued that granting specific performance after a 15-year gap was “unequitable” due to the “immense increase of price of the land.” He further contended that:
- The plaintiff failed to testify personally in court despite being alive until 1996.
- Cash payments to Defendant No. 3 (the Managing Director’s son) should not benefit the company as he had no authority to receive them.
- There was no proof the plaintiff attended the Sub-Registrar’s office on the final extended date.
For the Respondents (Plaintiffs): Senior Counsel Shri Pawanjit Singh Bindra submitted that the agreement was admitted and the cash receipts were proven by handwriting experts. He highlighted that:
- The plaintiff sent notices on June 13 and June 22, 1989, and attended the Sub-Registrar’s office, as evidenced by a stamped application.
- The non-appearance of the plaintiff was not fatal because his Manager (PW-4), who had personal knowledge of the transactions, testified.
- A sale deed had already been executed in favour of the plaintiffs on January 8, 2010, pursuant to the lower court’s decree.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court addressed several critical legal points:
1. Scope of Second Appeal (Section 100 CPC): The Court reiterated that findings of fact, even if erroneous, cannot be reopened in a Second Appeal unless they are perverse. Citing Bholaram vs. Ameerchand (1981) and Madhavan Nair vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005), the Bench noted:
“It is settled in law that the findings of fact howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon the substantial question of law.”
2. Non-Appearance of the Plaintiff: Regarding the appellant’s claim that the plaintiff’s failure to enter the witness box was fatal, the Court referred to Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao (1999) but clarified that the adverse inference is rebuttable. In this case, the Manager (PW-4) provided cogent evidence. Referring to Rajesh Kumar vs. Anand Kumar (2024), the Court observed:
“A power of attorney holder may depose on behalf of the principal in respect of such acts which are within his personal knowledge… the Manager, PW-4 herein had deposed about the entire transaction based upon his personal knowledge… his evidence cannot be discarded.”
3. Doctrine of Lis Pendens (Section 52 TP Act): The appellants admitted to selling 60% of the land in 2009 and the remaining 40% in 2025 during the pendency of the litigation. The Court, citing Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. (2013), held that such transfers are subservient to the court’s ultimate decision.
The Decision
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal. It ruled that since a sale deed had already been executed in favour of the plaintiffs in 2010 following the First Appellate Court’s decree, it would be “inequitable to dislodge them.”
The Court concluded:
“The sale deeds executed by the defendants on 12.02.2009 and 27.02.2025 are held to be non est and the decree as passed by the First Appellate Court is maintained.”
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Date: April 09, 2026
