Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree; Holds Transfers Pendente Lite Void and Reaffirms Limits of Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC

Case Name: Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 339
Date of Judgment/Order: 09 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court regarding readiness and willingness, payment of consideration, and extension of time cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse, and that transfers made during pendency of litigation are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and cannot defeat rights crystallised under a decree of specific performance.

Summary: The dispute arose from an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1988, where the trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance but granted refund of earnest money, while the First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed specific performance, which was upheld by the High Court in second appeal. During pendency of litigation, both parties executed sale deeds in respect of the suit property, raising issues regarding the effect of such transfers. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and upheld the First Appellate Court’s findings that the plaintiff had paid substantial consideration, validly extended time for performance, and remained ready and willing to perform his obligations. It rejected the contention that non-appearance of the plaintiff in the witness box was fatal, holding that such adverse inference stood rebutted by cogent evidence of the plaintiff’s manager. The Court reiterated settled law that second appeal under Section 100 CPC lies only on substantial questions of law and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or disturbance of concurrent findings of fact. On the issue of transfers, the Court held that alienations made during pendency of litigation are governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and remain subject to the final outcome of the case. It further noted that once a sale deed had already been executed in favour of the plaintiff pursuant to the decree, equities strongly favoured sustaining the decree rather than unsettling accrued rights.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the decree of specific performance granted by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court, declared the sale deeds executed by the defendants during pendency of litigation as non est, and maintained the rights accrued in favour of the plaintiffs, with parties left to bear their own costs.