Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance Decree in Russi Fisheries Land Dispute, Defendants' Sale Deeds During Litigation Declared Non EstUnder Doctrine of Lis Pendens
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., upholding the decree of specific performance granted by the First Appellate Court in favor of Bhavna Seth and others. The case, which revolved around an agreement to sell agricultural land, witnessed intricate legal contentions over the execution of sale deeds and the doctrine of lis pendens.
The dispute began with an agreement executed on July 18, 1988, between Anil Kishore Seth (now deceased) and Russi Fisheries for the purchase of 79 Kanals and 15 Marlas of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 15,41,000. The plaintiffs contended that they had paid Rs. 7,75,000, including both cheque and cash payments, and were ready to execute the sale deed on the final agreed date, June 30, 1989. However, the defendants failed to appear, leading to the institution of the suit for specific performance.
The trial court initially dismissed the suit for specific performance but ordered a refund of the amount paid through cheques. On appeal, the First Appellate Court overturned this decision, recognizing the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to fulfill the contract and ordering specific performance. This decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court in a second appeal.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the relief of specific performance is both equitable and discretionary. It rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the non-readiness of the plaintiffs, the unauthorized receipt of cash payments, and the purported inequity due to time passage and alleged price escalation. The court noted the absence of substantial evidence to support these claims and highlighted that findings of fact, unless perverse, cannot be disturbed in a second appeal.
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the application of the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The court declared the sale deeds executed by the defendants during the litigation as non est, reaffirming that such transfers are subservient to the court's eventual decision.
The ruling also addressed the issue of the plaintiff's non-appearance in the witness box, stating that adverse presumption can be rebutted by cogent evidence from other witnesses. The court found the manager's testimony sufficient to corroborate the plaintiffs' case, thus nullifying any adverse inference.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decree of specific performance, reinforcing the plaintiffs' rights under the agreement and dismissing the appeal by Russi Fisheries. The judgment underscores the principles of equity and the legal implications of transfers during pending litigation.
Bottom Line:
Specific Performance - Relief of specific performance is an equitable and discretionary relief - Findings of fact, unless perverse, cannot be reopened in second appeal - Doctrine of lis pendens applies to transfers made during litigation - Non-appearance of plaintiff in the witness box is not fatal if corroborated by sufficient evidence from other witnesses.
Statutory provision(s):Specific Relief Act, 1963, Sections 16 and 20; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100.
Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880321
