2025 INSC 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HONBLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. AND
HONBLE S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.)
J. GANAPATHA AND
OTHERS
Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. N. SELVARAJALOU
CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS
Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S)._________OF
2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) No(s). 827 OF 2017)-Decided on 25-03-2025
Civil
(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-ΰ-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-ΰ-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)
JUDGMENT
S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
:- Leave
granted.
2. The Civil Appeal arises from
the confirming judgment and the decree dated 08.09.2016 in O.S.A. No. 230 of
2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Civil Appeal is at the
instance of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 in C.S. No. 504 of 1998 on the file of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras. For convenience, we refer to the parties as
arrayed in C.S. No. 504 of 1998.
3. The following circumstances
are chronologically noted to appreciate the challenge to the impugned judgments
and the decrees:
|
1929 |
One Somasundaram Chettiar
purchased an extent of 0.75 cents (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaint
Schedule') through a registered sale deed. Padmini Chandrasekaran D/o late N.
Selvarajalou Chetty. Somasundaram Chettiar is the brother in law of the late
N. Selvarajalou Chetty. |
|
1952 |
For resolving the right and
title to the property left behind by her father, Padmini Chandrasekaran filed
C.S. No. 329 of 1952 on the Original Side of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras against N. Somasundaram and another. The original suit was decreed,
resulting in the filing of O.S.A. Nos. 49 of 1960 and 60 of 1959 by both the
parties to the suit. Somasundaram offered security of immovable properties,
including the Plaint Schedule, to realise the decree passed in favour of
Padmini Chandrasekaran. |
|
1962 |
Padmini Chandrasekaran filed
C.M.P. No. 4210 of 1962 to sell properties offered as security by
Somasundaram Chettiar. |
|
04.05.1962 |
The court auction sale of the
properties offered as security was held, and Padmini Chandrasekaran became
the auction purchaser. |
|
30.05.1962 |
Somasundaram Chettiar, adoptive
father of the first defendant, executed the will in Defendant No. 1's favour. |
|
14.06.1962 |
Somasundaram Chettiar died. |
|
25.09.1963 |
The Advocate Commissioner
executed the sale deed (Exhibit pursuant to the court sale order dated
04.05.1962 in P8) favour of Padmini Chandrasekaran regarding the Plaint
Schedule. |
|
11.12.1963 |
O.S.A. Nos. 49 of 1960 and 60
of 1959 were decided, confirming Padmini Chandrasekaran's right and
entitlement to her father's (N. Selvarajalou Chetty) business, jewellery and
insurance policies. |
|
30.03.1966 |
The Will of Somasundaram
Chettiar was probated. |
|
11.12.1972 |
Padmini Chandrasekaran created
and executed a deed of trust for M/s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust ('the
Trust'). |
|
30.09.1975 |
Padmini Chandrasekaran executed
the will and testament concerning the movable and immovable properties held
by her ('the Will'). Through the said Will, Padmini Chandrasekaran bequeathed
the properties to the Trust and a few individuals. The relevant clause for
the purpose of the present Civil Appeal reads thus: "I bequeath to Sri
Vinayagamurthy, son of Natesan Chettiar, residing at No. 122, P.V. Koil
Street, Royapuram, Madras, land in survey No. 170/2, 0.75 cents out of 5
Acres, 15 cents. As he has got children. I went my Executors to sell the said
property viz. 75 cents and deposit the sale proceeds into a long terms Fixed
Deposit and to pay interest alone to Vinayagamurti and after his life time,
the Fixed Deposit, the Principal amount shall be taken by his children in
equal share." |
|
07.06.1980 |
Padmini Chandrasekaran died. |
|
24.02.1992 |
V Arumuga Chandran/Defendant
No.2, in his stated capacity as Power of Agent of S. Sarvothaman/Defendant
No.1, executed sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6. |
|
28.10.1995 |
The Will dated 30.09.1975 was
probated in O.P. No. 117 of 1981. |
|
12.03.1998 |
C.S. No. 504 of 1998 was filed
by M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust represented by its Trustees (1) Mr.
H.B.N. Chetty, I.A.S.(Retd.), (2) Shri N.C. Raghavachari and (3) Shri R.
Krishnamoorthy against (1) S. Sarvothaman, (2) V. Arumuga Chandran, (3)
Ganapatha, (4) Marsilal, (5) Davichand, (6) Hari Singh and (7) M.
Ramachandran. |
4. The plaint prays -
i. For
a declaration that the four sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 executed by the second
defendant in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 relating to the Plaint Schedule
are void in law and cannot confer any rights on Defendant Nos. 3 to 6.
ii. For
possession of the Plaint Schedule.
iii.
For permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to deal with the Plaint
Schedule in any manner.
5. The parties and the suit
property are not new to litigation. The record discloses that the earlier civil
suit was filed by the late Padmini Chandrasekaran as early as 1952, and the
Plaint Schedule was offered as surety for the realisation of the claim of the
late Padmini Chandrasekaran.
6. In a nutshell, the case of the
plaintiff is that (i) the late Padmini Chandrasekaran, by virtue of the sale
order dated 04.05.1962, read with the sale deed dated 25.09.1963, has become
the absolute owner; (ii) the acquisition of right and title to the Plaint
Schedule is through court auction and by the sale deed executed by the Advocate
Commissioner; (iii) the court sale order dated 04.05.1962 and the sale deed dated
25.09.1963 have become final; (iv) the Will dated 30.05.1962, executed by the
late Somasundaram Chettiar, cannot and could not have bequeathed any right or
title to S. Sarvothaman/Defendant No. 1 concerning the Plaint Schedule; (v)
through the Will dated 30.09.1975, the late Padmini Chandrasekaran bequeathed
properties to the Trust and a few individuals; (vi) the Trust is represented by
the Trustees and is a party to the sale deed (Exhibit-P8), the first defendant
cannot convey right or title through Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant Nos.
3 to 6 for the Plaint Schedule; (vii) the cause of action refers to a few
publications made in Daily Thanthi, The Hindu, and Indian Express, and
perceived interference with the right and title of the plaintiff; (viii) the
tenor of the plaint claims the right and title to the Plaint Schedule through
the late Padmini Chandrasekaran in favour of the first plaintiff-Trust.
7. Before the learned Single
Judge, as the record would disclose, the first defendant remained ex parte, and
so was Defendant No.2.
8. Defendant Nos. 3 to
6/purchasers filed the written statement and assert (i) right and title to the
property on the narrative that the late Somasundaram Chettiar purchased the
Plaint Schedule through a registered sale deed No. 323 of 1929; (ii) the late
Somasundaram Chettiar, on 30.05.1962, willed the property in favour of his
adopted son, i.e., Defendant No.1; (iii) neither the Trust existed, nor the
Plaint Schedule stood vested in the Trust; (iv) Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are
unaware of the encumbrances and purchase of property in court sale by the late
Padmini Chandrasekaran; (v) the late Somasundaram Chettiar is not a party to
the court auction sale deed (Exhibit-P8), and the LRs of the late Somasundaram
Chettiar were not represented; (vi) therefore, the sale deed dated 25.09.1963
(Exhibit-P8) does not convey the title in favour of the late Padmini
Chandrasekaran against the right and title of Defendant No. 1.
9. The first defendant during the
pendency of O.S.A. No. 230 of 2007 has filed a Written Statement. Considering
the challenge and for more than one valid and legal reason, we deem it
unnecessary to delve into the stand taken by the first defendant.
10. The learned Single Judge
tried the following issues in C.S. No. 504 of 1998:
"7.
The following issues are framed for consideration:
(1)
Whether Padmini Chandrasekaran has got title to the suit property?
(2)
Whether the 1 st defendant had inherited the property in accordance with law?
(3)
Whether the 1st defendant's forefather has got any title to the suit property?
(4)
Whether the Trust is entitled to the property in order to have the relief asked
for?
(5)
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief pray ed for?"
11. In the detailed Judgment
dated 18.09.2006 in C.S. No. 504 of 1998, it was noted that the Trustee, Dr.
H.B.N. Shetty, is the arm of the testatrix, i.e., the late Padmini
Chandrasekaran, and has a substantial right to deal with the suit property. In
the circumstances of the case, such course can be permitted by setting aside
the sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and give
effect to the Will of the testatrix. As an answer to Issue No.2, it has been
held that Defendant No. 1 does not have the right or title to the Plaint
Schedule to convey to Defendant Nos. 3 to 6. This finding is crucial to the
course adopted by the learned Single Judge in moulding the relief in favour of
the executor for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and his children. The court sale
of the Plaint Schedule was held on 04.05.1962 in favour of the late Padmini
Chandrasekaran. The Advocate Commissioner executed the resultant sale deed on
06.03.1963 in favour of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran. Thus, the right and
title to the Plaint Schedule through the process of court and law stood
transferred and vested with the late Padmini Chandrasekaran. 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 Somasundaram on 14.06.1962 will not convey
right and title to Defendant No. 1 for the Plaint Schedule.
12. The learned Single Judge
holds that the Plaint Schedule being a vacant plot of land, the possession
follows the title, and the contention of adverse possession is untenable and
does not arise. It is also noted that, in the peculiar circumstances of the
case, it is unnecessary to direct Dr. H.B.N. Shetty, Trustee of the Trust, to
file another suit for setting aside the sale in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 to
6. The crucial circumstance noted for moulding the relief is that a few
executors have passed away, and the surviving executor is fairly aged. Therefore,
the reliefs have been moulded as follows:
"56.
Plaintiff Trust is not entitled to any decree. But the remedy is moulded for
reasons mentioned supra, in passing a decree in favour of Mr. H.B.N.Shetty in
his capacity as executor of Will, for
(i) setting
aside the sale deeds in favour of defendants 3 to 6 by the 1 st defendant
relating to the suit property (through the 2nd defendant as Power Agent).
(ii)
permanent injunction restraining the defendants 3 to 6 from in any manner
dealing with the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from putting up any construction over the suit property; and for
(iii) a
direction to the above executors of Will to execute the terms found in para 10
of Ex.P-3 Will of Mrs. Padmini Chandrasekaran (which was already probated) and
as found therein."
13. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6,
aggrieved by the judgement and decree filed O.S.A. No. 230 of 2007 before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench, through the impugned Judgment dated
08.09.2016, dismissed the appeals.
14. The gist of the confirming
findings of the impugned Judgment is that (i) the suit property was purchased
by the 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) the execution of the Trust resulted in the appointment of Sri. R.
Krishnamoorthy and Dr. HBN Shetty as the executors of the Will, and the Will
has been duly probated; (iii) as the purchase was a consequence of a court
auction sale dated 04.05.1962, Defendant No. 1 had no saleable right over the
Plaint Schedule without challenging the court auction sale. The Plaint Schedule
was purchased by the late Padmini Chandrasekaran in the court auction through
sale deed dated 26.09.1963. Thus, the 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 the executors were appointed to administer the
late Padmini Chandrasekaran's estate, the Trust does not have any right, title
and interest over the suit property. Therefore, it is concluded that the
learned Single Judge rightly moulded the relief and granted a decree in favour
of Mr. HBN Shetty -one of the executors - for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and
his children.
Hence, this Civil Appeal at the
instance of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.
15. Shri R. Basant, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, contends that the impugned
judgments are wholly illegal and are contrary to well-established principles of
law in moulding the relief by a court. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration
stands or fails on the case pleaded and proved. The consideration of the right
and title of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, claimed through Defendant No.1, is
unnecessary because the first plaintiff failed to derive right and title
through Ex. P8. No relief could be granted to the executors of the Will.
Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 would certainly reply and contest in a properly
instituted suit by the executors of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran. Further,
it is argued that the failure to challenge the sale order dated 04.05.1962 and
the sale deed dated 25.09.1963 in favour of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran
would not materially affect Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 or facilitate moulding the
relief by the impugned judgements. Issue No.2 should not have been taken up for
consideration, where the relief moulded in favour of the plaintiff is illegal
and untenable. Consequently, C.S. No. 504 of 1998 should have been dismissed,
leaving the token to the executors of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran to work
out the prayers as the arm of the testatrix. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are in
possession of the property, and the possession establishes the enjoyment and
also the right of the first defendant to the Plaint Schedule. He relied on the
principles laid down in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders[(1975) 1 SCC 770] and Shivanna and
others v. BS Puttamadaiah[(2023) SCC
OnLine SC 1969] to buttress his arguments on the illegality of the moulded relief.
16. Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, contends that the
moulding of relief in the peculiar circumstances of the case is available and
no exception in law or fact could be taken against the discretion exercised by
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. It is argued that moulding of
relief is available to the Court, and Defendant Nos.3 to 6, having been
confronted with the court sale order dated 04.05.1962 and sale deed dated
25.09.1963, cannot raise a ground against the moulding of relief. He comments
to the court to appreciate the legal character of trust and the role of trustees
and executors. In the case on hand, Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are not only Trustees
to the Trust but executors to the Will of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran. It
is argued that the failure to mould the relief would lead to the defeat of the
bequeath made by the late Padmini Chandrasekaran in favour of Vinayagamurthy
and his children. Expecting the beneficiaries to institute a suit would be a
third suit with respect to the same property. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6, having
joined the issue with the plaintiff on the manner of deriving title to the
Plaint Schedule, are estopped from raising an objection to the relief in the
peculiar facts of the case. He lastly contends that, in the exercise of this
Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court
examines all aspects and would decide whether the moulding of relief should be
interfered with or not.
17. We have taken note of the
contentions and perused the record.
18. This Court, for brief and
simple consideration, preferred to chronologically set out the major events and
circumstances admitted by the parties and the issues on which the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench rendered a decision. Therefore, the
circumstances are not once again adverted to in detail.
19. To sum up, we noticed that
the late Somasundaram Chettiar offered the properties, including the Plaint
Schedule, as surety for the realisation of the amounts decreed in favour of the
late Padmini Chandrasekaran. The surety offered by the late Somasundaram
Chettiar was put in the execution for the decree in favour of the late Padmini
Chandrasekaran. On 04.05.1962, the Plaint Schedule was purchased by the late
Padmini Chandrasekaran through court auction. Late Somasundaram Chettiar was
alive when the court sale was conducted. Thereafter, he bequeathed the Plaint
Schedule in favour of S. Sarvothaman/Defendant No.1. The subtlety is
appreciated firstly from the case of the plaintiff, i.e., the court sale order
dated 04.05.1962 has become final and a sale deed was executed on 25.09.1963 in
favour of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran. As long as the court sale and the
sale deed remain intact, Defendant No. 1 cannot and could not have claimed any
right and title to the Plaint Schedule as an adopted son through the Will dated
30.05.1962, as probated on 30.03.1966. Through legal, valid and binding
documents, the Plaint Schedule stood transferred in favour of the late Padmini
Chandrasekaran. The findings of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
are categorical and available in the case's facts and circumstances. The
argument for the appellant is that moulding of relief by the impugned judgments
is illegal.
20. 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.
21. The Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 do
not question the competence of the court to mould the relief. The argument
proceeds on the basis that in the circumstances of the case, moulding the
relief in favour of the executors of the Will is illegal.
22. The issues in C.S. No. 504 of
1998 have been set out supra. It is admitted that two of the Trustees and also
the executors of the Will of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran died. Late Padmini
Chandrasekaran 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 Vinayagamurthy and his children. The executors are Dr.
H.B.N. Shetty and Shri R. Krishnamoorthy. One of the executors had died, and
Dr. H.B.N. Shetty/Plaintiff No. 2 was fairly aged. It is in this background the
learned Single Judge, in the judgment dated 18.09.2006, has given the following
reasons:
"49.
The subject is very clear that 1st defendant has no title in suit property so
as to convey it to defendants 3 to 6 and that is why it was found earlier that
the sale in favour of defendants 3 to 6 is liable to be set aside.
50.
Simply because H.B. N. Shetty, who happened to be the trustee of the plaintiff
trust, filing the suit, is it necessary for him to file another suit in order
to get a decree for setting aside the sale of defendants 3 to 6 of suit
property and in order to oblige the terms of the Will of the testatrix, who was
found as a real owner of the property. In my opinion, especially in the present
facts and circumstances of the case, it is unnecessary to make him to go in for
another suit, after a lapse of 8 years. After all H.B.N.Shetty, the executor
himself is very aged (more than 80 years). As some of the. executors passed
away and some resigned and when H.B.N.Shetty himself is very old, it may not be
desirable to make him or other executor to file another suit.
51. If
the law permits, then the suit can be decreed in favour of H.B.N.Shetty in his
different capacity as executor of the Will ofPadmini, the real owner.
xxx xxx
xxx
54. As
mentioned supra, Mr. H.B.N.Shetty sitting in the Arm of Testatrix undoubtedly
had a substantial right to deal with suit property which can be done only after
setting aside the sale in favour of defendants 3 to 6, which was held supra as
invalid one. This finding was arrived only after keen contest between parties.
Thus H.B.N.Shetty although filed the suit representing the Trust, when found
holding capacity as executor of testatrix to execute a sale deed in order to
implement the other terms of the Will, shall have to be clothed with a decree
setting aside the sale in favour of defendants 3 to 6."
23. The Division Bench through
the impugned judgment confirmed the findings.
24. In the Civil Appeal, the
consideration is not whether relief should be moulded or not, but the
consideration would be whether moulding of relief in the circumstances of the
case is tenable or warrants interference by this Court. The title and ownership
acquired by the late Padmini Chandrasekaran 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-ΰ-vis the Plaint Schedule. The court
also found that the testatrix made an independent disposition in favour of
Vinayagamurthy and his children in the Plaint Schedule. The executor proved the
entitlement of the late Padmini Chandrasekaran vis-ΰ-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. While giving effect
to these findings, in our considered view, 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 Somasundaram Chettiar 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.
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. On careful scrutiny of
preceding circumstances and the averments established by the parties, we are of
the view that no exception is made out and the argument of Defendant Nos. 3 to
6 is accordingly rejected. We are not referring to the precedents on the point since
the core consideration in any given case is the setting in which the parties
agitate the issues and findings recorded by the court, finally resulting in the
moulding of relief. We may hasten to add 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. In our considered view, 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. We are in complete agreement with
the findings recorded by the impugned judgements.
25. For the above reasons and
after careful consideration of the record, we see 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/-
(Rupees one lakh only) payable to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the
Madras High Court within four weeks from today. Pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
------