The core of the dispute revolves around the ownership and proper conveyance of a specific property, referred to as the Plaint Schedule, through a complex history of sales, wills, and court actions dating back to 1929. The Supreme Court is reviewing whether the High Court of Judicature at Madras correctly “moulded” the relief for the plaintiff, effectively granting a remedy different from what was initially sought in the original lawsuit. This “moulding of relief” allowed the property’s rightful ownership to be affirmed and passed to the beneficiaries of a will, preventing further protracted litigation. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower courts’ decisions regarding the property’s title and the appropriately adjusted remedy.
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 7 – Civil Procedure – Moulding of relief – Challenge as to – Late ‘S’ offered the properties, including the Plaint Schedule, as surety for the realisation of the amounts decreed in favour of the late ‘P’ – The surety offered by the late ‘S’ was put in the execution for the decree in favour of the late ‘P’ – Court sale of the Plaint Schedule was held on 04.05.1962 in favour of the late ‘P’ – The Advocate Commissioner executed the resultant sale deed on 06.03.1963 in favour of the late ‘P’ – Thus, the right and title to the Plaint Schedule through the process of court and law stood transferred and vested with the late ‘P’ – Further, the execution of the sale deed dates back to the sale held on 04.05.1962, and the interregnum events, i.e., execution of the Will dated 30.05.1962 in favour of Defendant No.1 and the demise of ‘S’ on 14.06.1962 will not convey right and title to Defendant No. 1 for the Plaint Schedule – The title and ownership acquired by the late ‘P’ on a full-fledged trial in the second round of litigation in the present proceedings have been accepted by the impugned judgments – The prayer to have the relief of declaration in favour of the Trust through the Trustees was not accepted – The court found that the Trust cannot claim the relief of declaration vis-à-vis the Plaint Schedule – The court also found that the testatrix made an independent disposition in favour of ‘V’ and his children in the Plaint Schedule – The executor proved the entitlement of the late ‘P’ vis-à-vis the Plaint Schedule – Simultaneously, the claim of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 through Defendant No. 1 is illegal and unsustainable – The findings on Issue No. 2 in the judgement of the learned Single Judge enable the moulding of relief even after answering Issue Nos. 4 and 5 against the first plaintiff – The issues have been agitated by the parties concerned in a full-fledged trial; however, the description of the plaintiff and the narrative in the plaint for claiming right and title to the Plaint Schedule is not accepted by the impugned judgements – Admitted that two of the Trustees and also the executors of the Will of the late ‘P’ died – Late ‘P’ died issueless and desired to provide testamentary succession to the properties held by her in two portions, i.e., one in favour of the Trust and the other in favour of the individuals – The Plaint Schedule has been bequeathed in favour of ‘V’ and his children – The executors are Dr. H.B.N and Shri R – One of the executors had died, and Dr. H.B.N. /Plaintiff No. 2 was fairly aged – It is in this background the learned Single Judge moulded relief – Held that while giving effect to these findings the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have appreciated the effect of finding on Issue No. 2 – The objections of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 that ‘S’ died and his LRs were not represented in the sale deed are found to be factually incorrect by the impugned judgements – 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 – As a result, a fresh round of litigation for the same property, by applying judicious discretion, is avoided. – 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 – Held that no exception is made out and the argument of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 is accordingly rejected – No error or infirmity warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India – The Civil Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court within four weeks.
(Para 19, 22, 24 and 25)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 7 – Civil Procedure – Moulding of relief – Held 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 – 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 – 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.
(Para 20)
J. Ganapatha And Others V. M/S. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees And Others
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 395: (DoJ 25-03-2025)
