Case Name: Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 26593 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders directing execution of possession in favour of the defendants, holding that a litigant cannot both receive extraordinary equitable compensation and continue to hold property possession. The Court condemned the appellant’s conduct as obstructive and opportunistic, clarifying that once specific performance was denied and substantial compensation was awarded, the plaintiff had no locus to resist possession. The decree for ₹2 crore equivalent to eight hundred times the original earnest money of ₹25,000 paid in 1989 was intended to balance equities and bring finality, not to enable unjust enrichment.
Summary: The appellant had entered into an agreement to sell in 1989 and later obtained a decree for specific performance, upheld by three courts. In April 2025, the Supreme Court reversed those judgments, holding the suit barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC, but awarded ₹2 crore in equity. Despite this, the appellant refused to accept payment and obstructed execution. The executing court ordered issuance of warrants of possession and police assistance, which the High Court affirmed. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant was neither tenant nor licensee and had obtained possession solely under the aborted agreement. Having received exceptional compensation, he could not continue to occupy the property. The Court rejected reliance on Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi v. Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi, clarifying that equitable jurisdiction cannot be exploited to perpetuate unlawful possession. Reaffirming the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (“an act of the Court shall prejudice no one”), the Court held that the omission to specify surrender of possession in its earlier judgment could not advantage the appellant.
Decision: Appeal dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000 to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply. The Supreme Court upheld the issuance of warrants of possession with police aid, ensuring restoration of the defendants’ property and finality of the long-pending dispute.