Supreme Court Upholds Moulded Relief Setting Aside 1992 Sale Deeds; Dismisses Appeal With Costs

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal against the Madras High Court’s confirmation of a decree that set aside four sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 and moulded relief in favour of the executor of a will to give effect to testamentary bequests. The appeal arose from O.S.A. No. 230 of 2007 and the challenge concerned title to a 0.75 cent plot (the “Plaint Schedule”) and the validity of transfers said to have been effected by the first defendant through a power agent in 1992.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s findings that the Plaint Schedule had passed to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran by court auction on 04.05.1962 and by the subsequent sale deed, and that the attempted transfer by Defendant No.1 could not prevail over that court sale. The Court approved the trial court’s exercise of judicial discretion in “moulding of relief” to avoid further rounds of litigation and to give effect to the testamentary disposition made for the benefit of Vinayagamurthy and his children. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court held that no exception was made out to warrant interference under Article 136, and ordered costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court within four weeks.

Background The dispute stemmed from long-standing litigation concerning ownership of a small parcel of land that was offered as security by one Somasundaram Chettiar in earlier litigation. The land was sold in a court auction on 04.05.1962 and the Advocate Commissioner executed a sale deed in favour of Padmini Chandrasekaran in 1963. Somasundaram executed a will on 30.05.1962 apparently bequeathing the same property to his adopted son (later styled as Defendant No.1). Padmini later executed a will and created a trust; she died in 1980 leaving the Plaint Schedule by testamentary bequest in favour of Vinayagamurthy and his children and appointed executors and trustees.

The Trust instituted C.S. No. 504 of 1998 seeking declaration, possession and injunction, contending that the court sale and sale deed vested title in Padmini and that the 1992 sale deeds executed in favour of purchasers (Defendant Nos. 3–6) were void. Defendant purchasers pleaded that they derived title from Somasundaram and denied knowledge of the court sale. The trial court found that the Plaint Schedule passed to Padmini by court auction and that Defendant No.1 had no saleable right to convey the property; it therefore set aside the 1992 sale deeds and moulded relief in favour of Mr. H.B.N. Shetty in his capacity as executor to give effect to the will. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirmed these findings in O.S.A. No. 230 of 2007. The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the moulding of relief was illegal in the peculiar facts of the case, noting that the moulded relief aimed to “shorten the litigation and not subject the Plaint Schedule to vagaries of certain and uncertain documents.” The appeal failed and the decree was accordingly affirmed with costs. No interim directions beyond the costs order were required; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (@ S.L.P.(C) No. 827 of 2017); 2025 INSC 395 Case Title: J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust rep. by its Trustees and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri R. Basant, Senior Counsel (for Defendant Nos. 3–6 / appellants) For the Respondent(s): Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel (for the Trust / respondents)