Supreme Court directs payment of Rs.15 lakh as full and final settlement in long-running recovery decree dispute

A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal against a Madras High Court Division Bench order that had affirmed a Single Judge's direction requiring the appellant to pay Rs. 19,54,946 to the respondent in enforcement of a money decree arising from a mortgage transaction; leave was granted to the appellant to challenge the high court order.

The Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the orders below by directing a one-time payment of Rs. 15,00,000 to be made by the appellant to the respondent within two months as "full and final settlement of all dues". The Bench observed the matter had been protracted through multiple rounds of litigation and significant payments had already been made by the appellant, and concluded that, "in the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub-served if we direct the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs as full and final settlement of all dues and in complete satisfaction of the final decree." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having considered the matter in detail and in the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be sub-served if we direct the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 15 Lakhs as full and final settlement of all dues and in complete satisfaction of the final decree. The order is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent." The Bench added the operative direction in its order: "we allow the appeal in part and direct the appellant to pay to the respondent the amount of Rs. 15 Lakhs within a period of two months from today as full and final settlement of all dues."

Background The respondent commenced a suit for recovery seeking Rs. 79,69,544, alleging a loan of Rs. 58,50,000 had been advanced and secured by title deeds under mortgage, with interest at 9% on the principal. While the suit was pending, the appellant purchased the disputed property from the original defendants and an application for impleadment by the appellant was dismissed, which order attained finality. The trial court decreed the suit on October 5, 2010, and a final decree was recorded on August 29, 2011 for Rs. 79,69,544 with interest on Rs. 58,50,000 at 9% per annum.

The appellant's challenges in the lower courts failed and, over the course of litigation, the appellant paid approximately Rs. 1.15 crore, following which the Master of the High Court closed proclamation proceedings by order dated August 12, 2016. The respondent then filed an application before the Single Judge contending that an outstanding sum of Rs. 19.24 lakhs remained payable. The Single Judge allowed that application, set aside the order closing proclamation proceedings and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 19,54,946. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court affirmed that order; the appellant approached this Court by special leave and obtained leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court recorded the protracted nature of the dispute and the parties' inability to settle despite suggestions, and, considering the cumulative payments and litigation history, exercised its discretion to modify the decree enforcement directions. The Court expressly confined its order to the facts of the present case and noted that the direction should "not be treated as a precedent". The appeal was therefore allowed in part and final relief was calibrated to a lump-sum settlement; the Court granted two months' time for payment. No other directions were issued and no precedent was laid down for other cases.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7742 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 10797 OF 2019) Case Title: Umedraj Jain v. V. Sudarsanan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the order For the Respondent(s): V. Prabhakar, Senior Counsel