The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the enforceability of agreements to sell and clarified the legal effect of property transfers made during the pendency of litigation.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has observed that findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court—particularly regarding payment, extension of time, and readiness—could not be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be perverse. The Court emphasized that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in the absence of a substantial question of law.
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated July 18, 1988, concerning agricultural land measuring 79 Kanals and 15 Marlas. The plaintiffs contended that they had paid a substantial portion of the consideration—₹7.75 lakh—and were always ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations. However, the defendants allegedly failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, leading to litigation for specific performance.
The trial court denied specific performance, granting only a refund of ₹2.75 lakh (the amount paid via cheque). However, the first appellate court reversed this finding, holding that the plaintiffs had indeed paid ₹7.75 lakh and demonstrated readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. This decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in second appeal.
The defendants raised multiple objections, including the alleged lack of proof of cash payments, absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs, and the inequity of enforcing a decades-old agreement due to escalation in property prices. They also pointed out that the plaintiffs had not personally entered the witness box, arguing that this should lead to an adverse inference.
On the issue of non-appearance of the plaintiff as a witness, the Court acknowledged that an adverse inference may arise but clarified that such a presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the testimony of the plaintiff’s manager, who had personal knowledge of the transaction, sufficiently corroborated the plaintiff’s case and neutralized any adverse inference.
A crucial aspect of the case involved multiple transfers of the disputed land during the pendency of litigation. The defendants had sold portions of the property to third parties in 2009 and again in 2025. The Court held that such transfers are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. While such transfers are not void ab initio, they remain subject to the final outcome of the litigation.
Applying this principle, the Court ruled that the subsequent sale deeds executed by the defendants were “non est” in light of the decree of specific performance already executed in favour of the plaintiffs. It further observed that since the plaintiffs had already secured a registered sale deed through due legal process, it would be inequitable to disturb their rights at this stage.
The Court also rejected the contention that escalation of property prices over time rendered the decree inequitable. It noted that no concrete evidence had been presented to establish such escalation or its impact on fairness.
Concluding that there was no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed the case and affirmed the decree of specific performance. The judgment reinforces the binding nature of contractual obligations in property transactions and underscores that parties cannot defeat pending litigation by transferring property rights during its pendency.
Case Details
Case Title: Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Bhavna Seth & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-698-SC-2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 109 Of 2010
Date: 09/04/2026
