Supreme Court: Moulded Relief Must Not Take Aggrieved Party By Surprise Or Cause Prejudice; It’s Moulded As Exception & Not As Matter Of Course
|The Supreme Court dismissed a Civil Appeal filed against the confirming Judgment and Decree of the Madras High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the moulded relief must not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice and that such a relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course.
The Court observed thus in a Civil Appeal filed against the confirming Judgment and Decree of the Madras High Court.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held, “When moulding the relief, the court considers the issues and circumstances established during the full-fledged trial, looks at shortening the litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to the issue at hand. The converse of the above is that the moulded relief should not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice. The relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course.”
The Bench explained that the concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a Court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding based on the circumstances of the case and the facts established after a full-fledged trial.
Senior Advocate R. Basant appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
This case was related to a property dispute involving a 0.75 cents land (Plaint Schedule) in Panchkula. The property was initially purchased by Somasundaram Chettiar in 1929. Later, in 1952, Padmini Chandrasekaran filed a suit against Somasundaram Chettiar, which led to a Court auction sale of the property in 1962 in favour of Padmini. However, Chettiar executed a will in 1962 in favour of S. Sarvothaman, who later sold the property to the Defendants.
On the other hand, Padmini executed a Will in 1975 bequeathing properties to the Trust and individuals. The Trust, represented by its Trustees, filed a Suit challenging the Sale Deeds in favour of the Defendants. The Single Judge set aside the Sale Deeds and granted a decree in favour of the executor for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and his children. The Division Bench confirmed this decision. Being aggrieved by such decisions, the Defendants filed an Appeal before the Apex Court, challenging the validity of the Court auction sale and the Will executed by Padmini.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “The principle enables the court to grant appropriate remedies even if the relief requested in the pleading is not exact or could not be considered by the court or changed circumstances have rendered the relief obsolete. The court aims that justice is served while taking into account the evolving nature of a case. The above road map is pursued by a court based on the notion of flexibility in relief, equitable jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion.”
The Court noted that the non-challenge to the Court sale and allowing the Sale Deed to remain intact would militate against even a strong plea, which could be stated in the next round of litigation an as a result, a fresh round of litigation for the same property, by applying judicious discretion, is avoided.
“In other words, the impugned judgments have exercised discretion in moulding the relief compatible and commensurate with the circumstances of the case. It is in nobody’s interest except Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 to prolong the litigation by leaving it open to the parties to get into another round of litigation. Therefore, the argument of Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 on the moulding of relief by the impugned judgements is an abstract objection”, it added.
The Court further observed that the Court of first instance, while exercising the discretion to mould the relief, juxtaposes the consideration with the established conditions of the original relief becoming inappropriate or shortening the litigation and enabling rendering complete justice between the parties.
“The scrutiny on the moulding of relief by the appellate court tests the exercise of discretion by the trial court, but not in all cases, sit in the very armchair of the court which moulded the relief and re-examine every detail unless prejudice and grave injustice are pointed out against the moulding of relief. In a further appeal on the moulding of relief, the examination by the second appellate court ought to be minimal and not unsettle the settled”, it also said.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the moulding of relief, in this case, is to shorten the litigation and not subject the Plaint Schedule to vagaries of certain and uncertain documents.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.
Cause Title- J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 395)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate R Basant, AOR M. A. Chinnasamy, Advocates C. Raghavendren, C. Rubavathi, Leela Sarveswar, and V. Senthil Kumar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, AOR Rakesh K. Sharma, Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advocates V. Balaji, V. Pushpa, B. Dhananjay, Shubham Seth, Prakruti Malhotra, and Rajneesh Gedamz.