Table of Contents
Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors.
Citation: 2026
Introduction
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 100 CPC findings of fact cannot be reopened in a second appeal. It held that even if such findings appear incorrect, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless a substantial question of law arises.
Also Read:
Foreign Judgment Not Enforceable Without Fair Opportunity – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/foreign-judgment-not-enforceable-without-fair-opportunity-supreme-court/
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an agreement to sell agricultural land executed in 1988.
The trial court refused to grant specific performance and instead ordered refund of ₹2,75,000 paid as advance.
However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. It held that:
- The time for execution of the sale deed was extended
- A cash payment of ₹5,00,000 was made
- The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract
Accordingly, the First Appellate Court granted a decree of specific performance.
Subsequent Developments
The defendants challenged the decree before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. The Court granted leave on 08.01.2010 and passed an interim order.
However, on the same day, the plaintiffs executed the sale deed through court process based on the decree.
Meanwhile, the defendants had already sold 60% of the suit property in 2009 during the pendency of litigation. They later sold the remaining 40% during the pendency of the appeal in 2025.
Thus, multiple transfers of the same property took place during litigation.
Issue
The key issue before the Court was:
Whether findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court can be disturbed in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. It noted that these findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence.
The Court emphasized that second appeal jurisdiction is limited. The High Court can interfere only when a substantial question of law arises.
Legal Position Explained
The Court clearly held that section 100 cpc findings of fact cannot be reopened.
It laid down the following principles:
- Findings of fact are final
- High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence
- Even erroneous findings cannot be interfered with
- Interference is allowed only when findings are perverse or illegal
- A substantial question of law is necessary
The Court relied on settled precedents such as Bholaram v. Ameerchand, Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, and Kashibai v. Parwatibai.
Application to Present Case
The Court found that the First Appellate Court had correctly concluded:
- The time for execution was validly extended
- The payment of ₹5,00,000 was proved through receipts
- The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract
The defendants failed to produce any evidence to disprove these findings.
Further, documentary evidence and witness testimony supported the plaintiff’s case.
Readiness and Willingness
The Court observed that the plaintiff had issued notices calling upon the defendants to execute the sale deed.
He also appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the scheduled date with the balance consideration.
This conduct clearly established readiness and willingness.
Effect of Transfers During Litigation
The Court noted that both parties transferred the property during the pendency of litigation.
Such transfers are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens, and they do not affect the outcome of the suit.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
It upheld the decree of specific performance passed by the First Appellate Court and affirmed by the High Court.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces that Section 100 CPC findings of fact cannot be reopened in second appeal.
Courts must restrict their role to substantial questions of law and cannot re-examine factual evidence.
Also Read:
Supreme Court: Executing Court Cannot Alter Terms of Decree | Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/supreme-court-executing-court-cannot-alter-terms-of-decree/
[…] Also Read:Section 100 CPC: Findings of Fact Cannot Be Reopened in Second Appeal | Supreme Court Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-100-cpc-findings-of-fact-cannot-be-reopened/ […]
[…] Also Read:Section 100 CPC: Findings of Fact Cannot Be Reopened in Second Appeal | Supreme Court Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-100-cpc-findings-of-fact-cannot-be-reopened/ […]
[…] Also Read:Section 100 CPC: Findings of Fact Cannot Be Reopened in Second Appeal | Supreme Court Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-100-cpc-findings-of-fact-cannot-be-reopened/ […]