Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth 2026 INSC 339 - Non-Appearance Of Plaintiff In Witness Box
The adverse presumption drawn for non-appearing in the witness box by the plaintiff, is a rebuttable presumption.
Law of Evidence - Civil Cases- The effect of nonappearance of the plaintiff in the witness box to prove his plaint case -A presumption can always be drawn against him that the case, as pleaded by him, is not correct - The adverse presumption, if any, drawn for non-appearing in the witness box by the plaintiff, is a rebuttal presumption and if the aforesaid presumption is successfully rebutted by the other cogent evidence on record, the said presumption would not be material and applicable. (Para 41-42) A power of attorney holder may depose on behalf of the principal in respect of such acts which are within his personal knowledge but he cannot certainly depose for the principal, for the acts done by the principal and not known personally by him. (Para 43)
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 100 - The findings of fact howsoever erroneous, cannot be reopened and disturbed in second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only upon the substantial question 15 of law, if any, arising therein. (Para 31)
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name: Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bhavna Seth & Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 339Court & jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Civil Appeal No. 109 of 2010Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. VaraleJudgment date: 09 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Statutes / Laws Referred
The judgment expressly refers to:
- Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – doctrine of lis pendens.
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – scope of second appeal and requirement of substantial question of law.
It is also grounded in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 framework (specific performance being an equitable and discretionary remedy), though sections are not specifically numbered in the extracted text.
Case Law and Citations Relied On
The Court discusses and/or relies on the following authorities:
- Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 – transfer pendente lite is not void, but remains subservient to the ultimate decree; applied to hold that the defendants’ transfers during litigation are hit by lis pendens and are non est as against the decree-holders.
- Bholaram v. Ameerchand, (1981) 2 SCC 414 – even grossly erroneous findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal absent a clear error of law under Section 100 CPC.
- Madhavan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (Dead) by LRs, (2005) 10 SCC 553 – error in recording a finding of fact by the first appellate court is not by itself a ground for interference in second appeal.
- Kashibai w/o Lachiram v. Parwatibai w/o Lachiram, (1995) 6 SCC 213 – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in second appeal; interference only if a substantial question of law is involved.
- Kulwant Kaur v. Gurdial Singh Mann (Dead) by LRs, AIR 2001 SC 1273 – in second appeal, even erroneous findings of fact will not be disturbed unless vitiated for want of perversity.
- Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 573 – non‑appearance of a party in the witness box raises an adverse inference that their case is not correct; treated as a rebuttable presumption.
- Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar & Ors., (2024) 13 SCC 80 – a power of attorney holder may depose only to matters within personal knowledge; used by analogy to accept the Manager’s testimony.
- Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 217 – limits on deposition by a power of attorney holder; cited in Rajesh Kumar and applied here by analogy.
Brief Three‑Sentence Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the first appellate court’s decree for specific performance of the 1988 agreement to sell agricultural land, affirming findings that time for execution was validly extended, that Rs. 7,75,000 (including Rs. 5,00,000 in cash) had been paid, and that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform. It held that these were pure findings of fact, neither perverse nor based on inadmissible evidence, and thus not open to reappreciation in second appeal under Section 100 CPC. Applying the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 TPA, the Court dismissed the appeal and declared the defendants’ transfers of the suit land dated 12.02.2009 and 27.02.2025 to third parties to be non est as against the plaintiff’s already‑executed decree‑based sale deed.
