In a significant ruling on the limits of judicial discretion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified the principles governing the “moulding of relief” in civil cases, while upholding a decision that awarded ownership of land to the executor of a Will—despite the suit being filed by a Trust. The Court emphasized that though judges may shape remedies to serve justice, such power must be exercised cautiously, ensuring it does not prejudice any party or violate legal boundaries.
The verdict came in J. Ganapatha & Ors. vs. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust & Ors. [Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 827 of 2017], a complex land dispute involving a 0.75-cent property in Tamil Nadu, contested across generations.
The Case: A Timeline of Legacy and Litigation
The property in question was purchased by Somasundaram Chettiar in 1929. His niece, Padmini Chandrasekaran, filed a suit in 1952 to recover her share in her father N. Selvarajalou Chetty’s estate, resulting in a decree in her favour. To enforce it, Somasundaram’s property, including the disputed land, was auctioned by court order in 1962. Padmini bought it at the auction and a sale deed was executed in her favour in 1963.
Years later, in 1992, Defendant No.1, S. Sarvothaman—Somasundaram’s adopted son—sold the same land to Defendants 3 to 6, including J. Ganapatha and others, who claimed they were unaware of prior claims.
Padmini had passed away in 1980, having executed a Will in 1975, bequeathing the land not to the Trust, but to a man named Vinayagamurthy and his children. The Trust filed C.S. No. 504 of 1998, seeking to set aside the 1992 sale and regain possession.
Legal Issues
The case raised several legal issues:
- Did Padmini acquire valid title through the 1962 court auction?
- Could the adopted son inherit and sell the land in 1992?
- Was the Trust entitled to sue, or should the executor have done so?
- Could the court grant relief to the executor despite the suit being filed by the Trust?
Supreme Court’s Verdict
A Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti upheld the decisions of the Madras High Court’s Single Judge and Division Bench, which had declared the 1992 sale void and directed the property to be administered as per Padmini’s Will.
Though the Trust technically had no claim over the land, the Court permitted the executor, Dr. H.B.N. Shetty, to act on behalf of the Will’s beneficiaries.
Rejecting the appellants’ argument that the court could not mould relief in a case that was improperly framed, the Court explained:
“The concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modify or shape a relief sought… based on the circumstances of the case… The converse 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.”
Discretion is Not Unlimited
The judgment reaffirmed that the power to mould relief is grounded in equity and discretion, but not without limits. Courts must exercise restraint and ensure that the altered remedy does not bypass due process or procedural fairness.
“While giving effect to these findings… the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have appreciated the effect of Issue No.2 (on title)… 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.”
The Court noted that requiring a new suit by the aged executor would have prolonged the dispute unnecessarily and frustrated the intent of the Will.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the purchasers (Defendants 3 to 6), upholding the lower courts’ decisions. The appellants were directed to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court within four weeks.
