Supreme Court Dismisses Delay Tactics, Directs Possession After Rs.2 Crore Compensation Order

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal arising out of execution proceedings in which the appellant resisted delivery of possession after this Court, earlier in the year, set aside a decree for specific performance but awarded Rs.2,00,00,000 as compensation in lieu of earnest money. The appeal challenged the High Court of Punjab & Haryana’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s revision against two executing-court orders directing issuance of warrants of possession and arranging police assistance.

The Court summarised that the appellant had repeatedly obstructed execution and could not keep possession after receiving an extraordinary monetary award intended to balance equities. The Court emphasised equitable principles and held that "a party that has received such compensation must yield possession." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Equity will not allow unjust enrichment. The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party that has received such compensation must yield possession." The judgment further noted that "Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer," and stressed that the Rs.2,00,00,000 award was "to ensure that the suit property of the respondents continues with them and at the same time balance the equities between the parties." Applying the maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit," the Court held that inadvertent omissions in prior orders did not entitle the appellant to retain possession or to frustrate execution.

Background: The dispute arose from an agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 for a property against a total consideration of Rs.14,50,000, with Rs.25,000 paid as earnest money and possession of the ground floor handed to the purchaser. The plaintiff later filed a suit for specific performance (Civil Suit No.55 of 1990), which the trial court decreed on 11.12.2009; successive appeals by the defendants were dismissed by appellate courts and the High Court. The defendants challenged those decrees in Civil Appeal Nos.4647-4648 of 2025 before this Court, which on 01.04.2025 set aside the decree for specific performance as barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC but, in the interest of equity, awarded Rs.2,00,00,000 to the plaintiff in lieu of the original earnest money of Rs.25,000.

The defendants sought to comply with that direction and deposited the awarded sum by way of fixed deposits in the plaintiff’s name; the plaintiff refused to accept the payment and resisted surrender of possession. Execution proceedings followed: the executing court required the deposit to be reissued in the Court’s name, directed issuance of warrants of possession (issued 08.08.2025), and permitted police assistance after reports of resistance. The executing court also gave the plaintiff four days to accept the amount and hand over possession. The plaintiff’s objections were rejected and her revision before the High Court was dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.09.2025.

On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and distinguished precedent advanced on her behalf (Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi), observing that the possession claim arose only from the agreement to sell and could not be sustained alongside the monetary award which was meant to bring finality. The Court concluded that the executing court and High Court rightly directed issuance of warrants with police assistance and dismissed the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,00,000 to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within four weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum; proof of payment was to be filed within six weeks or the Registry would list the matter for further orders.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 26593 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1214) Case Title: Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Counsel