A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This dispute concerns competing claims of title arising from a court auction sale (04.05.1962) and a subsequently executed Will (30.05.1962) coupled with later inter vivos transfers.

The core legal question was whether the Plaint Schedule a 0.75-cent parcel stood transferred to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran by virtue of the court auction and consequent sale deed dated 25.09.1963 (advocate-commissioner deed) so as to defeat the testamentary bequest made by Somasundaram Chettiar in favour of S. Sarvothaman (defendant No.1) and later transfers by defendant No.1 to purchasers (defendant Nos.3–6).

The trial court and the Division Bench accepted that the court sale order (04.05.1962) and sale deed vested title in Padmini, and on that factual matrix moulded relief in favour of the executor H.B.N. Shetty (arm of the testatrix) to set aside sale deeds in favour of defendants 3–6 and to give effect to the testatrix’s testamentary provision for Vinayagamurthy and his children.

The Supreme Court upheld the findings:

(i) the court sale and sale deed remained valid and conclusive;

(ii) testamentary disposition by Somasundaram executed after the court sale could not defeat the perfected conveyance; and

(iii) the courts below legitimately exercised discretionary power to mould relief to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectuate justice.

The decision reiterates the twin limits on moulding: it must be exercised to do complete justice and must not take a party by surprise or cause prejudice. Relevant precedents referred include Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders and Shivanna v. B.S. Puttamadaiah; the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Keywords: court auction sale; sale deed; will; moulding of relief; executors; trust; prior sale; possessory/non-possessory title.

B) CASE DETAILS 

i) Judgement Cause Title: J. Ganapatha & Ors. v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. by its Trustees & Ors.
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4370 of 2025
iii) Judgement Date: 25 March 2025
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India (Bench: Pankaj Mithal & S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.)
v) Quorum: Two Judges
vi) Author: S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
vii) Citation: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1150 : 2025 INSC 395.
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Article 136, Constitution of India; principles of transfer of property via court sale, probate of will, and moulding of relief (equitable/judicial discretion).
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None stated.
x) Related Law Subjects: Property Law; Succession/Probate Law; Civil Procedure; Equity and Relief (remedial/judicial discretion).

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation has deep historical roots beginning with purchase of the Plaint Schedule in 1929 and multiple rounds of contestation arising out of family disputes, decree execution and testamentary dispositions. Somasundaram Chettiar offered immovable property (including the Plaint Schedule) as security in proceedings initiated by Padmini Chandrasekaran (1952 suit), which culminated in execution of a court order for sale (04.05.1962) and the Advocate-Commissioner’s sale deed in favour of Padmini dated 25.09.1963.

Intervening to these events, Somasundaram executed a Will (30.05.1962) purportedly bequeathing the same land to his adopted son S. Sarvothaman. Padmini later created a trust (11.12.1972) and executed her own will (30.09.1975) bequeathing the Plaint Schedule to Vinayagamurthy and his children; she died in 1980.

Much later defendant Nos.3–6 claimed title through conveyances executed in 1992 by defendant No.2 acting as agent for defendant No.1. Suit C.S. No. 504 of 1998 was instituted by the Trust (represented by executors/trustees) seeking declaration, possession and injunction to set aside the 1992 sale deeds.

The courts below found that on the established chronology the court auction and the attendant sale deed vested absolute title in Padmini, thereby precluding the testamentary bequest of Somasundaram from overriding the earlier, perfected transfer.

Recognising gaps in institutional continuity among executors and anticipating multiplicity of litigation, the trial court moulded relief in favour of an executor to set aside the 1992 transfers and to implement the 1975 testamentary terms for the stated beneficiaries. The High Court Division Bench sustained that remedial exercise and the present appeal attacked that moulding as legally unsustainable.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1929: Somasundaram Chettiar originally purchased the Plaint Schedule by registered deed. 1952: Padmini initiated suit to resolve title to properties of her father; decree led to execution proceedings. 1962 (04.05.1962): Court auction of surety properties Padmini became auction purchaser. 30.05.1962: Somasundaram executed a Will favouring S. Sarvothaman. 14.06.1962: Somasundaram died. 25.09.1963 (Ex.P8): Advocate-Commissioner executed the sale deed in favour of Padmini pursuant to the 1962 auction. 1963–1966: Related appellate/ probate proceedings; the Will of Somasundaram was probated (30.03.1966). 1972–1975: Padmini created a Trust (1972) and executed her own Will (30.09.1975) bequeathing the Plaint Schedule to Vinayagamurthy and his children; that Will was probated in 1995. 1980: Padmini died.

1992: Conveyances from defendant No.1 (through an agent) to defendant Nos.3–6. 1998: Trust instituted C.S. No. 504 seeking to nullify the 1992 transfers and secure possession and injunction. Trial produced evidence of the 1962 auction and 1963 sale deed; the defendants relied on the Somasundaram Will and claimed non-representation of his LRs during sale.

The Single Judge found the court auction and sale deed decisive, held defendant No.1 lacked title to convey and moulded relief in favour of executor H.B.N. Shetty to set aside the 1992 transfers and implement the testatrix’s testamentary provision. Division Bench confirmed; defendants 3–6 appealed to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Plaint Schedule stood transferred to Padmini Chandrasekaran by virtue of the court auction (04.05.1962) and consequent sale deed (25.09.1963) so as to defeat the later Will (30.05.1962) and subsequent conveyances?
ii. Whether the courts below validly moulded relief in favour of an executor to set aside the 1992 sale deeds and to give effect to the testatrix’s testamentary disposition?
iii. Whether moulding of relief under the facts caused prejudicial surprise to defendant Nos.3–6 or exceeded judicial discretion?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Learned Senior Counsel for defendant Nos.3–6 argued that relief must be confined to the case pleaded; the Trust’s pleading did not establish a right to decree for the executor and moulding in favour of the executor was illegal.
ii. It was contended that non-challenge of the 1962 sale by LRs and alleged procedural defects (non-representation of LRs) meant the sale deed could not be treated as conclusive against defendants; possession and enjoyment by defendants supported title/entitlement.
iii. Reliance was placed on Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders and Shivanna v. B.S. Puttamadaiah to urge that moulded relief should not be granted where it departs from fundamental pleadings and causes prejudice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Respondent emphasised that the court sale order (04.05.1962) and the resulting sale deed (25.09.1963) were final and conclusive; therefore defendant No.1 could not derive any saleable title by virtue of the later Will.
ii. It was urged that moulding relief was appropriate to avoid multiplicity of suits, implement the deceased testatrix’s clear testamentary provisions and secure justice for the beneficiaries (Vinayagamurthy and his children).
iii. Respondent emphasised the legal character of trustees/executors: since executors were appointed and the Will probated, the executor-plaintiff had locus to seek the relief and relief in his capacity as executor did not take defendants by surprise.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court affirmed the concurrent conclusions reached below. It held that the court auction (04.05.1962) and the subsequent sale deed (25.09.1963) transferred the title to Padmini and those instruments, remaining unchallenged, insulated the Plaint Schedule from being defeated by the Will dated 30.05.1962 executed by Somasundaram.

The Court observed that the interregnum events execution of Somasundaram’s Will and his death could not operate to re-vest title in his adopted son when the sale to Padmini had already become effective under process of law. The Court further examined the trial-court exercise of judicial discretion in moulding relief: noting that two executors had died and the surviving executor was elderly, the Single Judge moulded relief to enable execution of the testatrix’s disposition without forcing the aged executor to institute a fresh suit.

The Supreme Court reiterated the principles governing moulding: courts must aim at complete justice, consider the factual matrix established at trial, avoid multiplicity of litigation, and ensure that moulded relief does not unfairly surprise or prejudice adversaries.

Applying these principles, and on careful scrutiny of issues and findings (particularly Issue No.2 that Defendant No.1 had no title), the Court found no miscarriage in the relief moulded. The appellate scrutiny was described as limited: unless prejudice or grave injustice is shown, a higher court should not unsettle discretionary moulding. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is twofold: first, where a court sale is conducted and a sale deed executed under the statutory/appointed mechanism and remains unchallenged, the purchaser acquires a title which cannot be subsequently defeated by a later testamentary disposition by the erstwhile owner; second, a court legitimately may mould relief including decrees in favour of executors/trustees to render effective the rights established in a full trial, provided such moulding conforms to principles of fairness, does not cause prejudice, and is exercised to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to effectuate justice.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court elucidated the doctrine of moulding of relief as a flexible judicial tool rooted in equitable jurisdiction and discretion; it emphasised that moulded relief is an exception — not a routine exercise — and that appellate review of such discretion should be cautious and limited. The judgment further stressed that non-challenge of a court sale and passage of time diminish the capacity of later claimants to unsettle the transaction.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Courts may mould relief when issues fully tried indicate that an alternative remedy better secures justice and shortens further litigation.
ii. Moulded relief must be grounded on findings reached after full trial and not be a surprise that prejudices parties.
iii. Appellate interference with moulded relief requires demonstration of prejudice or grave injustice; mere disagreement is insufficient.
iv. A court sale and attendant sale deed, left unchallenged, have conclusive effect against later testamentary claims.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment is a careful reaffirmation of two core tenets: the finality of a court sale when its processes are duly completed and unchallenged; and the measured scope of judicial moulding as an instrument to achieve substantive justice and avoid needless multiplicity of litigation.

The Court balanced formalistic adherence to pleadings with pragmatic relief-shaping permitting an executor to vindicate testamentary intent where procedural realities (death/resignation of executors, advanced age) made technical insistence on repetitive suits unjust. The decision warns against using moulding as a tool for procedural surprise and underscores restrained appellate review.

For property and succession litigators, the case reinforces diligence in challenging court sales in time and demonstrates that probate or testamentary rights cannot override prior legally perfected transfers. The judgment also serves as authority for courts to consider equitable consequences and administrative practicality while exercising remedial discretion.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770.
ii. Shivanna & Ors. v. B.S. Puttamadaiah, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1969.
iii. J. Ganapatha & Ors. v. M/s N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust Rep. By Its Trustees & Ors., [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1150 : 2025 INSC 395.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Constitution of India, Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal).