Prem Aggarwal vs. Mohan Singh & Ors.
Background
In 1989 the respondents (sellers) agreed to sell a property to the appellant (buyer) for Rs. 14,50,000, of which Rs. 25,000 was paid as earnest money, with partial possession handed over. After protracted litigation spanning decades, including an earlier injunction suit and a later suit for specific performance that was decreed in the buyer's favour and upheld through appeals, the Supreme Court had earlier (1 April 2025) set aside the decree for specific performance itself but molded equitable relief by directing the sellers to pay the buyer Rs. 2,00,00,000 (roughly 800 times the original earnest money) instead of transferring the property. The buyer refused to accept this payment, obstructed execution proceedings, and returned to the Supreme Court challenging the executing court's and High Court's orders directing issuance of a warrant of possession against him.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that once a party has been awarded, and is entitled to receive, a substantial monetary compensation as full satisfaction of his claim, he cannot simultaneously refuse that payment and retain possession of the property, doing so would amount to unjust enrichment and a windfall. The Court found no error in the Executing Court's and High Court's directions to issue warrants of possession with police assistance, holding that execution exists to give effect to judgments, not to let a litigant exploit the process to extract more than what was awarded. The appeal was dismissed with an additional cost of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed on the appellant, payable within four weeks (with interest thereafter), for pursuing what the Court called a "cautionary tale" of resisting a decree despite substantial compensation already ordered in his favour.
Lesson Learnt
Once a court has awarded fair monetary compensation in lieu of a property right and that award becomes final, a litigant cannot refuse the payment while still clinging to possession of the property. Courts will enforce execution and can penalise such delay tactics with heavy costs.