CASE NAME: Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors
CASE NUMBER: Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: 23 April, 2026
CORAM: JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL & JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
FACTS
Anil Kishore Seth established a contract with Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. on 18.07.1988 through its Managing Director Smt. Surjit Kavaljit Singh which involved the purchase of 79 Kanals 15 Marlas of agricultural land for Rs. 15,41,000/-. The contract required execution of the sale deed by 15.12.1988 which received two extensions before reaching its final deadline of 30.06.1989. The plaintiff claimed he attended the Sub-Registrar’s office on 30.06.1989 with the balance consideration but the defendants did not appear. The defendant allegedly received Rs. 7,75,000/- through two payment methods which included Rs. 2,75,000/- paid by cheque and Rs. 5,00,000/- given as cash to defendant No. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance which the Trial Court dismissed yet ordered a refund of Rs. 2,75,000/. The First Appellate Court reversed this decision by granting specific performance which the High Court upheld in Second Appeal. The defendants then approached the Supreme Court.
Despite the fact that the leave was granted in the SLP and an interim order was also passed, the heirs of plaintiff through the process of the Court on the same very day i.e., 08.01.2010 got the sale deed executed in their favour on the strength of the decree of specific performance passed by the first appellate court as affirmed in second appeal. It is also pertinent to mention that the defendants sold 60 percent of the suit land on 12.02.2009 i.e., even before the SLP was filed but during the pendency of the litigation. The remaining 40 percent of the land was sold by them during the pendency of this appeal on 27.02.2025. Therefore, though on the one hand there is a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs of the suit land, the same also stands transferred to third parties by the defendants during the pendency of the litigation. In the background of the above transfers of the suit land made by the parties, one of the points before this Court would be as to the effect and impact of the above transfers on the outcome of the suit itself.
ISSUES
- Whether the plaintiff establishes that he maintained ongoing readiness to fulfil his contractual obligations?
- Whether the cash payments made to defendant No. 3 create legally binding obligations for defendant No. 1 (the Company)?
- Whether the plaintiff’s failure to testify as a witness lead to an insurmountable problem for the lawsuit while the time delay should determine whether specific performance gets approved?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Doctrine of Lis Pendens;
Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Second Appeal.
ARGUMENTS:
Plaintiff’s Arguments: The plaintiff’s attorney presented evidence that both parties had signed the agreement which constituted official documentation for their case. Cash receipts which defendant No. 3 signed showed that he received money as the Company Director who acted to receive funds on behalf of the Company. Extension letters bore the signature of defendant No. 2 herself, which she admitted in cross-examination. Two notices were sent by certificate of posting before 30.06.1989. The Sub-Registrar’s office application which the plaintiff submitted proved his attendance and willingness to work through its official stamp. PW-4, the Manager, had personal knowledge of all transactions and sufficiently corroborated the plaintiff’s case. The First Appellate Court findings maintained their original correctness which prevented their challenge during Second Appeal proceedings.
Defendants’ Arguments: The defendants maintained their position about specific performance being an equitable remedy that should remain unavailable after 15 years because land prices had experienced significant increases. The defendant party claimed that the plaintiff failed to testify because he never took the witness stand which resulted in unfavourable evidence for the plaintiff. The cash payments to Defendant No. 3 were null due to the lack of proper acceptance. The plaintiff failed to prove he attended the Sub-Registrar’s office on 30.06.1989 and the notices dated 13.06.1989 and 22.06.1989 were never received by them. The High Court overlooked the existing conflicting findings between the Trial Court and First Appellate Court because it failed to create any important legal question that required determination.
ANALYSIS
- On Findings of Fact and Second Appeal: Courts reject fact findings only if the findings display complete irrationality. The Court established through Bholaram v. Ameerchand (1981) 2 SCC 414 and Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann AIR (2001) SC 1273 that the High Court properly refused to review the evidence again.
- Readiness, Willingness and Payment: The Court found that both parties agreed to extend the time period because their agreement existed through documents which the Managing Director signed. The cash receipts clearly stated defendant No. 3 received money as Director on behalf of the Company, which he never denied by entering the witness box. The plaintiff’s application before the Sub-Registrar on 30.06.1989, bearing the office stamp, sufficiently proved his attendance and preparedness with funds.
- On Non-Appearance of Plaintiff: The non-appearance of the plaintiff creates a negative assumption which exists according to Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 but can be disproved. The Manager PW-4 presented his testimony which contained details about all business activities. The court case Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar (2024) 13 SCC 80 established that a witness with personal knowledge of information can testify for another person. The plaintiff’s absence from the courtroom does not stop the legal process from continuing.
- On Lis Pendens and Equity: The defendants’ two sale deeds which they executed during the legal case are subject to section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which renders their existence void. The plaintiff acquired rights to execute the sale deed through legal means on 08.01.2010 according to a valid court ruling, which means that his rights should remain intact because their removal would create an unreasonable situation
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal because the court found no valid reasons to continue with the case. The court confirmed the First Appellate Court order which required specific performance to be carried out. The sale deeds that the defendants signed on 12.02.2009 and 27.02.2025 became invalid because Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act established the doctrine of Lis pendens which applied to these documents.
CONCLUSION
The court ruling establishes that specific performance decreed through valid factual findings must remain intact until the Second Appeal presents an essential legal question. A party who does not attend court proceedings creates an adverse presumption which can be proved false by trustworthy witness evidence. All property transfers that occurred during active litigation must follow the final court judgment according to the Court which protects the rights of parties who complete legitimate sale transactions through proper judicial processes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: PRANAVI KOLLU
Read the judgement copy below:
RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS BHAVNA SETH & ORS.
