Summary
The Supreme Court upheld concurrent judgments of the Madras High Court which, after finding that the plaintiff Trust had no title to the suit land but that the testatrix had acquired it in a 1962 court auction, moulded the relief by decreeing the suit in favour of a trustee in his capacity as executor of her will and setting aside the 1992 sale deeds in favour of the appellants; moulding of relief to shorten litigation after a full trial warranted no interference under Article 136.
Issues
- Whether the courts below could mould the relief by decreeing the suit in favour of a plaintiff-trustee in his different capacity as executor of the testatrix's will, when the Trust's own claim to a declaration of title failed.
- Whether an appellate court, and this Court under Article 136, should interfere with a trial court's exercise of discretion in moulding relief.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court examined whether the moulding of relief in the circumstances of the case warranted interference and found no error or infirmity calling for the exercise of its jurisdiction. (¶¶ 16, 24, 25)
Held
- So long as the court sale of 04.05.1962 and the resulting sale deed executed by the Advocate Commissioner in favour of the testatrix remain intact and unchallenged, the first defendant could claim no title to the property as adopted son under the later will of his adoptive father, and the sale deeds executed on his behalf through a power agent in favour of the appellants conveyed nothing. (¶¶ 19, 24)
- Moulding of relief is the court's ability to modify or shape the remedy on the basis of the circumstances and facts established after a full trial, so as to grant an appropriate remedy where the relief pleaded is inexact, cannot be granted or has become obsolete; it rests on flexibility, equitable jurisdiction and judicial discretion, aims to shorten litigation and render complete justice, must not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice, and is an exception, not a matter of course. (¶ 20)
- The appellants did not question the court's competence to mould relief but only its tenability in this case; since the finding on Issue No. 2 that the first defendant had no title was reached after a keen contest, two of the executors had died and the surviving one was aged, and the appellants' objection that the deceased owner's heirs were not represented in the sale deed was found factually incorrect, moulding the decree in favour of the executor avoided a third round of litigation over the same property and was compatible with the circumstances; the objection was an abstract one. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24)
- The court of first instance, when moulding relief, weighs whether the original relief has become inappropriate and whether the moulded relief shortens litigation and does complete justice; an appellate court tests that exercise of discretion but does not sit in the trial court's armchair and re-examine every detail unless prejudice and grave injustice are shown, and in a further appeal the examination ought to be minimal and should not unsettle the settled. (¶ 24)
Result
Civil appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000 payable to the Legal Aid Services Authority of the Madras High Court within four weeks; pending applications disposed of.