Facts: The dispute arose from an agreement to sell agricultural land dated 18.07.1988 between Anil Kishore Seth (plaintiff) and Russi Fisheries P. Ltd. (defendant) for Rs. 15,41,000/-. The plaintiff paid part of the consideration through cheques (Rs. 2,75,000/-) and allegedly paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash to the defendant's son, an attesting witness. Time was originally of the essence, with the deadline extended to 30.06.1989. The plaintiff alleged he attended the Sub-Registrar's office on the final date with the balance amount, but the defendants failed to appear. Conversely, the defendants denied receiving cash payments and contested the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. During the pendency of the long-standing litigation, the defendants sold portions of the suit land to third parties, while the plaintiff's heirs eventually obtained a sale deed through the court process in 2010.Procedural Posture: The Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance, granting only a refund of the earnest money. The First Appellate Court reversed this, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court, in Second Appeal, upheld the First Appellate Court's decree. The defendants subsequently approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition.Issue: 1. Can the High Court in a Second Appeal interfere with or reappreciate findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court? 2. Is the non-appearance of the plaintiff in the witness box fatal to the suit when a manager with personal knowledge deposes? 3. What is the impact of transfers made "pendente lite"?Holding: 1. No, findings of fact cannot be disturbed in Second Appeal unless they are perverse. 2. No, the adverse inference from a party's non-appearance is rebuttable by other cogent evidence, such as a manager's testimony. 3. Transfers made during litigation are subject to the doctrine of "lis pendens" and are subservient to the final decree.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law; even erroneous findings of fact do not warrant interference if they are supported by evidence. Regarding the plaintiff's absence from the witness box, the Court applied the principle from "Vidyadhar vs. Manikrao", noting that while an adverse inference arises, it was successfully rebutted by PW-4 (the Manager), who had personal knowledge of the transactions. Furthermore, the Court held that the defendants' "pendente lite" transfers were "non est" in the face of the decree. Finally, as the decree had already been executed in 2010, it would be inequitable to dislodge the plaintiffs after such a long duration.