LexJ. GANAPATHA AND OTHERS versus M/S N. SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1150 : 2025 INSC 395 J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4370 of 2025) 25 March 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the Plaint Schedule stood transferred in favour of one late PC through legal, valid and binding documents; Whether appellant is justified in contending that moulding of relief by the impugned judgment is illegal. Headnotes† Property – Transfer of Property – Auction sale of property – Will – Late SC offered the properties, including the Plaint Schedule, as surety for the realisation of the amounts decreed in favour of the late PC – Surety offered were put on auction – On 04.05.1962, Plaint Schedule was purchased by the late PC through Court auction – However, Late SC bequeathed the Plaint Schedule in favour of defendant no.1 – Meanwhile, PC created a trust and later, bequeathed her properties including Plaint Schedule to the Trust and few individuals – Defendant No.1 further conveyed right or title of the Plaint Schedule to defendant Nos. 3-6 through defendant no.2 – The Single Judge of the High Court held that the right and title to the Plaint Schedule through the process of court and law stood transferred and vested with the late PC – Further, the remedy was moulded, in passing a decree in favour of one HBNS (arm of the testatrix i.e. PC) in his capacity as executor of Will – Same was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court – Correctness: Held: 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 PC – As long as the court sale and the sale deed remain intact, defendant No.1 cannot and could not have claimed any * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1151 J. Ganapatha and Others v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others 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 PC – The findings of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are categorical and available in the case’s facts and circumstances – As far as moulding is concerned, the impugned judgments have exercised discretion in moulding the relief compatible and commensurate with the circumstances of the case – The Single Judge of the High Court opined that simply because HBNS, who happened to be the trustee of the plaintiff trust, it was not necessary for him to file another suit in order to get a decree for setting aside the sale in favour of defendants 3 to 6 of suit property – 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 – This Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the impugned judgements. [Paras 19, 22, 24] Principle/Doctrine – Moulding of relief – Concept of: Held: 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] Case Law Cited Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders [1975] 3 SCR 958 : (1975) 1 SCC 770; Shivanna and Others v. BS Puttamadaiah, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1969 – referred to. 1152 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.