Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. and Another – Appellants
Versus
Bhavna Seth and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010
Decided On : 09-04-2026
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Findings recorded by First Court were reversed by Court of First Appeal and categorical findings were recorded that plaintiffs have proved extension of time for execution of sale deed, cash payment and that plaintiff was always ready and willing to get sale deed executed within time – These findings are strictly findings of facts and are not shown to be perverse in any manner – Findings of fact howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon substantial question of law – There is no denial of fact or evidence by defendants that contents of application are incorrect and that plaintiff had not attended office with necessary finances so as to get sale deed executed – Findings as returned by First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness, extension of time and payment of cash money are not perverse and illegal – Adverse inference drawn on account of non-appearance of plaintiff stands rebutted by his evidence and other evidence on record – Sale deeds executed by defendants during pendency of litigation are hit by doctrine of lis pendens and are non est – When decree has already been executed and substantive rights have accrued in favour of heirs of plaintiff, it would be inequitable to dislodge them from benefit of sale in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction – Impugned decree upheld. (Paras 30, 31, 39, 40, 42, 45 and 46)
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. Said suit for specific performance was dismissed with alternative relief of refund of admitted amount paid in advance with interest. Decree passed by the court of first instance was reversed in first appeal which judgment and order has been upheld by High Court in Second Appeal.
Findings of Court:
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.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - Sale deeds executed by defendants during pendency of litigation are void under lis pendens doctrine (!) (!) (!) . - Decree of specific performance remained enforceable because substantive rights accrued in favor of heirs before sale deeds were executed (!) (!) . - Findings of fact by First Appellate Court were not perverse and cannot be reopened in second appeal (!) (!) . - Plaintiffs proved readiness and willingness to execute sale deed through timely attendance and proper notice to defendants (!) (!) (!) . - Transfer of property to third parties during litigation does not override rights established by decree of specific performance (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of specific performance suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's analysis of plaintiff's readiness (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 23) |
| 3. arguments against specific performance claim (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. findings on existence of valid agreement (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. implications of witness non-appearance (Para 34 , 35 , 38 , 43) |
| 6. final decision on the appeal (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. This is an appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell.
2. The said suit for specific performance was dismissed with the alternative relief of refund of the admitted amount paid in advance with interest. The decree passed by the court of first instance was reversed in first appeal which judgment and order has been upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal.
3. One Anil Kishore Seth (since deceased) now represented by his heirs and legal representatives1 [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’] entered into an Agreement dated 18.07.1988 with Russi Fisheries (P) Ltd.2 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No. 1’] through its Managing Director Smt. Surjit Kavaljit Singh3 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No. 2’] to purchase agricultural land admeasuring 79 Kanals 15 Marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15,41,000/-.
4. The aforesaid agreement to sell was executed by defendant No. 1 through its Managing Director, defendant No. 2 and was attested inter alia by her son Sanjit Kumar Singh.4 [Hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant No. 3’] The aforesaid agreement is an unregistered agreement but as the same was not denied, it was marked as an Exhibit.
5. Under the agreement, time was the essence of the contract and the sale deed was to be executed by 15.12.1988. The time for execution of the sale deed was twice extended and the last extended time was up to 30.06.1989.
6. It is alleged that on the last date of the extended time i.e. 30.06.1989, the plaintiff attended the office of the Sub-Registrar with the balance sale consideration to get the sale deed executed but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants to execute the sale deed. Accordingly, after service of notice, the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 985/1989 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.07.1988 contending inter alia that under the agreement the total sale consideration agreed was Rs. 15,41,000/- out of which Rs. 75,000/- was paid by cheque as earnest money; 2,00,000/- by cheque on 11.11.1988 to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3; thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid on 01.12.1988 in cash to the defendant No. 3 and again a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-on 20.12.1988 to the defendant No. 3 when the time for execution of sale deed was first extended to 31.01.1989. In this way, the plaintiff allegedly paid Rs. 2,75,000/- by cheque and Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash, totaling Rs. 7,75,000/-, and the balance was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. He contended that he was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and to perform his part of the agreement.
7. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 all filed appearance but the suit was contested by Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 only by filing a joint written statement. They admitted the agreement to sell and the receipt of Rs. 2,75,000/- through cheque as part of the sale consideration but denied receiving the cash payment and that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to fulfill their part of the agreement. They further stated that Defendant No. 3 was not authorized to receive any payment on behalf of the defendant No. 1 as he was merely an attesting witness to the agreement.
8. The court of first instance dismissed the suit for specific performance on 10.12.1999 by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, but decreed it for the refund of sale consideration of Rs. 2,75,000/-, admitted to have been paid
(1) Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – When decree has already been executed and substantive rights have accrued in favour of heirs of plaintiff, it would be inequitable to dislodge ....
Agreement to Sell – If plaintiff, in a suit for specific performance is required to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, it is necessary for him to step into wi....
The court upheld the agreement to sell's execution and the plaintiff's readiness to perform the contract. Specific performance granted with enhanced consideration due to market changes reflecting the....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and the agreement must be validly executed by all necessary pa....
A sale agreement executed by only one co-owner is defective and cannot support a claim for specific performance, which necessitates establishing readiness and willingness separately.
Specific performance – Relief of specific performance is equitable remedy – Plaintiff have to necessarily show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract from date of agreem....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
