Supreme Court of India
J. GANAPATHA AND OTHERSversusM/S N. SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 395
- Decided
- 25 March 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- PANKAJ MITHAL
Holding
The Court held that the court‑sale and subsequent sale deed vested title in the late Padmini Chandrasekaran, rendering the later wills and the 1992 sale deeds ineffective, and that the trial court’s moulding of relief in favour of the executor was proper and not illegal.
Summary
The dispute concerned the ownership of a 0.75‑cent plot (the Plaint Schedule) that had been sold at a court auction in 1962 to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran, with a sale deed executed in 1963. Subsequent wills by the original owner and by Padmini attempted to bequeath the property to various parties, including a trust and individual beneficiaries, leading to sale deeds in 1992 that transferred the plot to defendants 3‑6. The trial court held that the court‑sale and sale deed gave Padmini absolute title, rendering the later wills and the 1992 deeds ineffective, and moulded relief by granting a decree in favour of the executor of Padmini’s will to set aside the 1992 deeds. On appeal, the respondents argued that such moulding of relief was illegal, while the appellants contended that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to avoid further litigation. The Supreme Court examined the factual chronology, the validity of the original court‑sale, and the principles governing moulding of relief, concluding that the lower courts had acted within their jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s decree and the transfer of title to the executor.
Issues considered
- Whether the Plaint Schedule was validly transferred to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran by the court auction and sale deed.
- Whether the wills executed by the original owner and by Padmini Chandrasekaran could affect the title to the Plaint Schedule.
- Whether the sale deeds of 24.02.1992 conveying the property to defendants 3‑6 are void.
- Whether the trial court’s moulding of relief in favour of the executor of the will is permissible under law.
- Whether the appellant’s contention that moulding of relief is illegal warrants interference.
Headnote
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† 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
Subjects
PropertyTransfer of PropertyAuction sale of propertyWillMoulding of reliefLegal documentsBinding documentsFlexibility in reliefEquitable jurisdiction
Judgment
[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.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
Property; Transfer of Property; Auction sale of property; Will;
Moulding of relief; Legal documents; Binding documents; Notion
of flexibility in relief; Equitable jurisdiction.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4370
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 230 of 2007
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
R Basant, Sr. Adv., M. A. Chinnasamy, C Raghavendren, Mrs. C
Rubavathi, Ch. Leela Sarveswar, V. Senthil Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Jayanth Muth Raj, P B Suresh, Sr. Advs.,
V. Balaji, Ms. V. Pushpa, B. Dhananjay, Asaithambi Msm, Vinod K.
Nair, Rakesh K. Sharma, Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Ashwin Kumar
D.S., Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Shubham
Seth, Ms. Prakruti Malhotra, Rajneesh Gedamz.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
1. 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:
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1153
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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’).
1154 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1155
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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
1156 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 1st 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 prayed 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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1157
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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 1st 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
1158 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1159
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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 Traders1 and
Shivanna and others v. BS Puttamadaiah2 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.
1 (1975) 1 SCC 770
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1969
1160 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1161
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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.
1162 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 of Padmini, 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-à-
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-à-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
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1163
J. Ganapatha and Others v.
M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees and Others
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.
1164 [2025] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Property"Sign in to search