In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., upholding a decree of specific performance in a decades-old land dispute. The Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the lower courts, bringing finality to litigation that began in the late 1980s.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated July 18, 1988, involving agricultural land measuring nearly 80 kanals. The buyer, Anil Kishore Seth (now represented by his legal heirs), had agreed to purchase the land for ₹15.41 lakh.
According to the plaintiffs, a substantial portion of the consideration-₹7.75 lakh-was paid, partly through cheques and partly in cash. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs claimed they were always ready and willing to complete the transaction.
Read also:- Supreme Court Explains ‘Same Line of Business’ Rule in IBC Case, Allows Appeal Withdrawal
However, the defendants denied receiving the cash payments and disputed the plaintiff’s readiness to perform the contract.
The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance in 1999, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness. It instead ordered a refund of ₹2.75 lakh with interest.
This decision was reversed in 2003 by the first appellate court, which held that the plaintiff had indeed paid ₹7.75 lakh and had demonstrated readiness to perform the agreement. The High Court later upheld this decision in second appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that:
- The plaintiff had not proven readiness and willingness.
- Cash payments were not validly established.
- The delay of over 15 years made the relief inequitable.
- The plaintiff did not testify personally, raising doubts about the case.
They also pointed out that parts of the land had been sold to third parties during the pendency of the litigation.
Read also:- Loss of Trust Justifies Dismissal: Delhi HC Upholds Termination in Misappropriation Dispute
The bench noted that the first appellate court had recorded clear findings on payment, extension of time, and readiness of the plaintiff. These were factual determinations.
“The findings of fact… are not shown to be perverse in any manner,”
the Court observed, adding that such findings cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless a substantial question of law arises.
The Court accepted evidence showing that the plaintiff had issued notices and appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the final date with funds.
“The plaintiff had come prepared and ready with the balance sale consideration,” the bench noted, relying on documentary and witness evidence.
While acknowledging that the plaintiff did not step into the witness box, the Court clarified that this only raises a rebuttable presumption.
“The adverse inference… stands rebutted by other cogent evidence on record,” the Court said, accepting the testimony of the plaintiff’s manager.
The Court addressed the sale of the land to third parties during the pendency of the case.
Read also:- FIR Delay Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Criminal Case, Sets Clear Limitation Rule
It held that such transfers are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and remain subject to the final outcome
. “The transfers… would follow the decision passed in this appeal,” the bench stated.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree of specific performance granted by the first appellate court.
It further held that the sale deeds executed by the defendants during the litigation were “non est” (having no legal effect), and confirmed the validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs.
Case details
Case Title: Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Bhavna Seth & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010
Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: April 9, 2026
