Execution of decree – Specific performance – Equitable compensation – Possession – Refusal to accept payment – Abuse of process – Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Order II Rule 2 CPC – Section 53-A T.P. Act.
Equitable moulding of relief – Enforcement of decree.
Where the Supreme Court, while setting aside a decree for specific performance on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC, awarded ₹ 2,00,00,000/- in lieu of ₹ 25,000/- earnest money paid in 1989 to balance equities, the vendee-plaintiff, having refused to accept the payment and having obstructed execution, was held disentitled to continue in possession. The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party receiving such extraordinary compensation must yield possession.
Execution proceedings – Conduct of decree-holder.
The appellant had been delaying and obstructing execution despite there being no default by the respondents in tendering the sum within three months as directed by this Court. The Executing Court rightly directed issuance of warrants of possession and the High Court correctly affirmed.
Quantum of compensation – Reasonableness.
Grant of ₹ 2 crores, being 800 times the earnest money, was a “whopping” and “extraordinary” amount compared to any possible interest even at 36 per cent per annum. Such grant was intended to end litigation and balance equities after thirty-six years; the appellant, neither tenant nor licensee, had possession only under the agreement to sell.
Possession – No independent right.
The plaintiff’s earlier suit for injunction based on possession had been dismissed and had attained finality. Upon dismissal of the suit for specific performance, the plaintiff could not resist delivery of possession or insist on a separate suit for eviction.
Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act – No protection.
Defence under Section 53-A TP Act not available once the agreement to sell stood negatived and equitable compensation granted. Appellant cannot both retain possession and receive ₹ 2 crores in lieu of ₹ 25,000/- advance.
Precedent distinguished.
Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pralhad Bhairaoba Suryavanshi, (2002) 3 SCC 676, held inapplicable; facts therein were distinct and did not justify continued possession in the present case.
Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Clarification of omission.
The Court applied the maxim that an act of the Court shall prejudice none. Any inadvertent omission in the earlier judgment not to specify surrender of possession cannot result in injustice; the Court must restore parties to the position they would have occupied but for such omission (Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 219, approved).
Costs – Consequence of obstruction.
Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,00,000/- payable by the appellant within four weeks, failing which interest at 12 % per annum shall apply.
Held:
“The appellant has shot himself in the foot and in the same breath dug his own grave. Equity will not allow unjust enrichment. The process of execution exists to give effect to judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party that has received such compensation must yield possession.”
Result:
Appeal dismissed with costs of ₹ 10 lakhs. Executing Court and High Court orders affirmed. Warrants of possession with police assistance upheld.
2025 INSC 1214
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 1 of 11
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 26593 OF 2025)
PREM AGGARWAL ...APPELLANT(S)
Versus
MOHAN SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Some litigants, it seems, cannot take yes for an answer. After
this Court on 1st April, 2025 set aside the decree but moulded
equitable relief by directing payment of ₹2,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Crores), a sum 800 (eight hundred) times the
₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) paid as
earnest money in 1989, the appellant refused the tender,
obstructed execution, and has returned to this Court in an
effort to delay the inevitable. This appeal is a cautionary tale
about how the pursuit of a windfall can turn the process of law
against those who seek to exploit it, in order to retain
possession while spurning an extraordinary monetary award.
The appellant has shot himself in the foot and in the same
breath dug his own grave. Equity will not allow unjust
enrichment. The process of execution exists to give effect to
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 2 of 11
judgments and not to underwrite windfalls. A party that has
received such compensation must yield possession.
3. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order
dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 5810 of 2025,
titled ‘Prem Aggarwal through her GPA Holder vs. Mohan
Singh and others’, whereby the said revision assailing the
correctness of the order dated 07.08.2025 as well as order
dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Chandigarh (for short, “Executing Court”) directing for issue of
warrant of possession and rejecting the objections/application
of the appellant, was dismissed.
4. The facts giving rise to the present appeal in brief are as
follows. Appellant hereinafter is referred to as the plaintiff and
the respondents as defendants for the initial part of the order.
i) An agreement to sell dated 12.06.1989 was executed by
the defendants whereby they agreed to sell the suit
property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/-
in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the
agreement to sell, an advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- was
paid as earnest money. The suit property consisted of two
floors. On the first floor there were two tenants. The
ground floor was vacant. Its possession was given to the
plaintiff pursuant to the agreement. In February 1990, the
plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 44 of 1990 for a simple
relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants
from alienating or dispossessing them from the suit
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 3 of 11
property. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendants
intended to resell the suit property as an advertisement
had been issued by them on 07.01.1990 in daily
newspaper ‘The Tribune’. The said suit for permanent
injunction was dismissed as withdrawn by the Trial Court
on 15.06.1990 and attained finality.
ii) The plaintiff thereafter instituted another suit bearing Civil
Suit No. 55 of 1990 in June 1990 seeking a decree of
specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
12.06.1989. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court,
vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2009. Against the
said order, the first appeal preferred by the defendants was
dismissed on 19.09.2013. The second appeal before the
High Court was also dismissed, vide judgment and order
dated 13.05.2022. A review petition by the defendants also
received the same fate and was dismissed on 19.08.2022.
High Court although dealt with the issue of Order II rule 2
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 but fell in error as it ignored
the fact that the suit for injunction and the suit for specific
performance were based on the same cause of action, i.e.,
the advertisement for sale published on 07.01.1990 in
daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’. High Court proceeded on
the premise that at the time of filing suit for injunction only
dispossession was threatened and there was no intention
to not execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement to
sell.
1 For short, “CPC”
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 4 of 11
iii) The defendants assailed the aforesaid judgments before
this Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 4647-4648 of 2025,
titled ‘Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs. Prem Aggarwal’.
iv) This Court, vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2025,
allowed the appeals and after setting aside the impugned
orders therein dismissed the suit, primarily on the finding
that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court awarded an amount of Rupees Two Crores to be paid
by the defendants to the plaintiff within three months in
lieu of the earnest money of Rs.25,000/- that was paid in
the year 1989.
5. It appears that the defendants tried to make the payment to
the plaintiff but they declined to accept the same and as such
execution proceedings were initiated in which the defendants
deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores by way of Fixed
Deposits in the name of the plaintiff. The Executing Court
directed the plaintiffs to accept the amount and hand over the
possession but when it did not happen, the defendants applied
for issuance of warrants of possession.
6. The Executing Court in its order dated 07.08.2025 noted that
the amount of Rupees Two Crores had been furnished by way
of Fixed Deposit in the name of the plaintiff. But since the
plaintiff had not received them, the Executing Court directed
that the original Fixed Deposit be returned, and fresh Fixed
Deposit be furnished in the name of the Court. It further
directed for issuance of warrant of possession on 07.08.2025
and fixed 12.08.2025 as the next date. The warrants were
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 5 of 11
issued on 08.08.2025. When the matter was next taken up on
12.08.2025, the Court was apprised by the Bailiff that the
police assistance was required as there was resistance at the
time of the execution of warrants of possession.
7. Further on 12.08.2025, the plaintiff filed
objections/application to recall the warrant of possession to
which the defendants sought time to file response on the same
day. The matter was directed to be taken up post lunch. Post
lunch after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Executing
Court rejected the application/objections of the plaintiff and
further directed for police assistance to be rendered by the
concerned SHO. The Executing Court further granted 4 days’
time to the plaintiff to receive the amount, and the warrant of
possession were to be executed only after 4 days in case the
plaintiff would not receive the amount and hand over
possession. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders i.e.,
07.08.2025 and 12.08.2025, the plaintiff preferred Civil
Revision before the High Court which has since been
dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated
11.09.2025.
8. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior
counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Aditya Dassaur,
learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents
appearing on caveat. Hereinafter the plaintiff would be referred
to as the appellant and the defendants as the respondents.
9. We have no hesitation in recording at the outset that the
appellant has been unnecessarily delaying and causing
obstruction in the execution of the decree. We also record that
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 6 of 11
there is no default on the part of the defendants in complying
with the direction of this Court to pay the amount of Rupees
Two Crores to the appellant. The amount was to be paid within
three months, which was duly tendered by way of Fixed
Deposits along with the application for execution filed on
26.06.2025 within period of 3 months granted by this Court,
vide judgment dated 01.04.2025.
10. Once this Court found that the suit for specific performance
was liable to be dismissed it was at the discretion of this Court
whether or not to direct for refund of the earnest money and if
yes then at what rate of interest it should be awarded.
Normally it would be a reasonable rate of interest. If it was
increased to 18%, 24% or 36% still the amount of interest
would be abysmally low as compared to what this Court
awarded. Table below will show the amount of interest
component at different rates of interest:-
1. 25000 x 9 x 36 = 81,000/-
100
2. 25000 x 18 x 36 = 1,62,000/-
100
3. 25000 x 24 x 36 = 2,16,000/-
100
4. 25000 x 36 x 36 = 3,24,000/-
100
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 7 of 11
What has been awarded by the judgment and order
dated 01.04.2025 is a whopping amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
(Rs. Two Crores only) as against the earnest money of Rs.
25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only). Merely because the
fact of possession was not pointed out at the time of hearing,
the appellant as an unscrupulous litigant has been resisting
the delivery of possession and has dragged the respondents up
to this Court.
This Court had awarded the amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-
(Rs. Two Crores only) to the appellant to ensure that the suit
property of the respondents continues with them and at the
same time balance the equities between the parties. The
appellant who had won from three Courts and a period of
36 years had passed since the time of execution of the
agreement is suitably compensated. The appellant was
neither a tenant nor a licencee or lessee on the ground floor
of the suit property. He had been inducted only because of
the agreement to sell. Once it has been held that no relief
can be granted for specific performance and an
extraordinary amount has been awarded to compensate the
meagre amount of advance is only to adjust the equities.
Appellant cannot have any right to resist possession and
should not have obstructed or resisted the delivery of
possession.
11. The appellant has no locus or justification to hold on to the
possession for the additional following reasons:
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 8 of 11
i) His suit for permanent injunction based upon his
possession pursuant to the agreement to sell had been
dismissed on 15th June, 1990 and had attained finality.
ii) Apparently, it was not pointed out at the time of the
hearing of the Civil Appeal Nos. 4647-4648 of 2025 that
the appellant was continuing in possession otherwise at
that very stage this aspect would have been clarified and
specific direction would have been issued that the
amount of Rupees Two Crores was being paid by the
respondents to the appellant not only in lieu of earnest
money but also that the appellant would be required to
hand over possession to the respondents.
12. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel has sought
to argue that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of
Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and being
in possession of the suit property, she was entitled to continue
till there was a decree of eviction. The respondents having
failed to claim possession before this Court, therefore, now the
only recourse open to them is to file a suit for possession. He
has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case
of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi and another vs.
Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (dead) by LRS. And
others2.
13. The submission advanced by Mr. Bhatnagar does not merit
consideration as the very claim of possession was based on the
agreement to sell and the suit for specific performance having
2
(2002) 3 SCC 676
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 9 of 11
been dismissed by this Court with an exorbitant amount of
compensation being awarded to suitably compensate him, he
cannot enjoy the possession and at the same time receive the
amount of Rupees Two Crores as against an advance amount
of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only. The appellant had lost
in the suit for permanent injunction and now having lost in
the suit for specific performance of contract cannot claim to
hold on to the possession or insist that the defendants should
file a separate suit for possession. The compensation of
Rupees Two Crores was awarded only to bring an end to the
litigation and put a quietus.
14. The facts in the case of Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi
(supra) were quite different and distinct and do not in any way
help the plaintiffs. The plaintiff wants to take undue advantage
of an omission in the judgment dated 01.04.2025, wherein this
Court did not clarify that possession would be handed over to
the respondent upon receipt of the amount awarded.
15. The maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’, which means that
the act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is a principle firmly
embedded in our jurisprudence. It is founded on the equitable
notion that no party should suffer owing to an error, delay, or
inadvertence attributable to the Court itself. The Court, acting
as in appendage of justice, cannot permit its own procedure or
inadvertent lapse to occasion injustice. Accordingly, where a
party has been disadvantaged by reason of an act of the Court,
it is incumbent upon the Court to undo such prejudice and
restore the party to the position he would have occupied but
for such act. This Court long back in the decision of three-
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 10 of 11
Judges in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal3, quoted the maxim with
approval and held that: -
“6. . . . It is no doubt true that a litigant must be vigilant
and take care but where a litigant goes to Court and asks
for the assistance of the Court so that his obligations under
a decree might be fulfilled by him strictly, it is incumbent
on the Court, if it does not leave the litigant to his own
devices, to ensure that the correct information is
furnished. If the Court in supplying the information makes
a mistake the responsibility of the litigant, though it does
not altogether cease, is at least shared by the Court. If the
litigant acts on the faith of that information the Courts
cannot hold him responsible for a mistake which it itself
caused. There is no higher principle for the guidance of the
Court than the one that no act of Courts should harm a
litigant, and it is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if
a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be
restored to the position he would have occupied but for that
mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim:
“Actus curiae neminem gravabit”.”
(emphasis supplied)
The maxim thus operates as a constant reminder that
the Court’s authority must be exercised not to the
disadvantage of litigants, but in furtherance of justice. After
all, to err is human, and when an inadvertent omission is
brought to the Court’s attention, it becomes the Court’s
solemn duty to ensure that no party suffers on account of such
mistake. In such circumstances, the Court is obliged to restore
the party to the very position he would have occupied had the
error not occurred.
16. We are thus satisfied that the Executing Court and the High
Court have taken a correct view in directing for issuance of
warrants of possession with police assistance. The appeal,
therefore, deserves dismissal.
3 1963 SCC OnLine SC 219
C.A.No……@ SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025 Page 11 of 11
17. For all the reasons recorded above, we dismiss the appeal with
cost which is quantified as Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs
only) to be paid by the appellant to the respondents within 4
weeks failing which it will carry an interest component of 12%
per annum. Proof of payment of costs be filed within six weeks.
If no such proof is filed, the Registry shall list this matter
before this Court for appropriate orders.
..……………………….J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
..……………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 07, 2025.