2025 Supreme(SC) 537

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
J. Ganapatha and Others – Appellants
Versus
M/S. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. by Its Trustees and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 4370 of 2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) No(s). 827 of 2017)
Decided On : 25-03-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Power of Court to mould relief – Court aims that justice is served while taking into account evolving nature of a case – Relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course.
(2) Court of first instance, while exercising discretion to mould relief, juxtaposes consideration with established conditions of original relief becoming inappropriate or shortening litigation and enabling rendering complete justice between parties.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 7 and Section 151 – Power of Court to mould relief – Concept of moulding of relief refers to ability of court to modify or shape a relief sought by a party in a legal proceeding based on circumstances of case and facts established after a full-fledged trial – Principle enables court to grant appropriate remedies even if relief requested in pleading is not exact or could not be considered by court or changed circumstances have rendered relief obsolete – Court aims that justice is served while taking into account evolving nature of a case – Such road map is pursued by a court based on notion of flexibility in relief, equitable jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion – When moulding relief, court considers issues and circumstances established during full-fledged trial, looks at shortening litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to issue at hand – However, moulded relief should not take aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice – Relief is moulded as an exception and not as a matter of course. (Para 20)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 7 and Section 151 – Power of Court to mould relief – In Civil Appeal, consideration is not whether relief should be moulded or not, but consideration would be whether moulding of relief in circumstances of case is tenable or warrants interference by this Court – Title and ownership acquired by deceased purchaser on a full-fledged trial in second round of litigation in present proceedings have been accepted by impugned judgments – Prayer to have relief of declaration in favour of Trust through Trustees was not accepted – Court found that Trust cannot claim relief of declaration vis-à-vis Plaint Schedule – Court also found that testatrix made independent disposition in favour of beneficiary and his children in Plaint Schedule – Non-challenge to court sale and allowing sale deed to remain intact would militate against even a strong plea, which could be stated in next round of litigation – As a result, fresh round of litigation for same property, by applying judicious discretion, is avoided – Impugned judgments have exercised discretion in moulding relief compatible and commensurate with circumstances of the case. (Para 24)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 151 read with Order VII Rule 7 – Power of Court to mould relief – Court of first instance, while exercising discretion to mould relief, juxtaposes consideration with established conditions of original relief becoming inappropriate or shortening litigation and enabling rendering complete justice between parties – Scrutiny on moulding of relief by appellate court tests exercise of discretion by trial court, but not in all cases, sit in very armchair of court which moulded relief and re-examine every detail unless prejudice and grave injustice are pointed out against moulding of relief – In a further appeal on moulding of relief, examination by second appellate court ought to be minimal and not unsettle the settled – Findings recorded by impugned Judgments affirmed – Civil Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to Legal Aid Services Authority of Madras High Court. (Paras 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Gist of confirming findings of impugned Judgment is that (i) suit property was purchased by late Padmini Chandrasekaran by virtue of a sale deed dated 26.09.1963, and subsequently, executed a will dated 30.09.1975. Thus, Ms. Padmini Chandrasekaran had derived a right, title, and interest of the suit property; (ii) execution of Trust resulted in the appointment of Sri. R. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. HBN Shetty as executors of Will, and the Will has been duly probated; (iii) as purchase was a consequence of a court auction sale dated 04.05.1962, Defendant No. 1 had no saleable right over Plaint Schedule without challenging the court auction sale. Plaint Schedule was purchased by late Padmini Chandrasekaran in court auction through sale deed dated 26.09.1963. Thus, sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 executed in favour of Defendants Nos. 3 to 6 by Defendant No. 1 through Defendant No. 2 are nothing but void; (iv) since executors were appointed to administer late Padmini Chandrasekaran’s estate, Trust does not have any right, title and interest over the suit property. Therefore, it is concluded that Single Judge rightly moulded relief and granted a decree in favour of Mr. HBN Shetty – one of executors – for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and his children.

Findings of Court:

Moulding of relief, in this case, is to shorten litigation and not subject Plaint Schedule to vagaries of certain and uncertain documents.

Result : Civil Appeal dismissed with costs.