The Supreme Court recently reprimanded a plaintiff for refusing to vacate a property after receiving ₹2 crore as compensation in lieu of specific performance of a sale agreement. The Court emphasized that retaining possession while benefiting from an extraordinary monetary award amounted to unjust enrichment and was impermissible in law. The appellant had executed a sale agreement in 1989, paying ₹25,000 as earnest money and obtaining possession of part of the property. Subsequent litigation culminated in a Supreme Court judgment on April 1, 2025, which set aside the lower courts' decree for specific performance but awarded ₹2 crore as equitable compensation.
Despite the respondents' attempts to execute the order by depositing the compensation amount, the appellant resisted surrendering possession. The executing court and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana directed the issuance of warrants to deliver possession, and the appellant's revision petition was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the appellant had "shot himself in the foot" by obstructing execution and emphasized that equity would not permit unjust enrichment. The Court noted that the ₹2 crore award was intended to balance equities and put an end to the litigation. Retaining both the compensation and possession was deemed impermissible.
Applying the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), the Court observed that an inadvertent omission by the court to mention the delivery of property should not be used by a litigant to gain an unfair advantage. The direction to pay ₹2 crore was intrinsically linked to the dismissal of the suit, serving as compensation for the loss of the bargain and the right to possess. Therefore, the obligation to return possession was a necessary and implied corollary of the judgment.
The Court justified the issuance of warrants of possession against the appellant and dismissed the appeal with costs of ₹10 lakh. The decision underscores the principle that a litigant cannot retain possession while benefiting from an extraordinary monetary award, and equity would not permit such unjust enrichment.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.