The Supreme Court recently rebuked a plaintiff in a specific performance case for refusing to hand over possession of a property even after receiving ₹2 crore as compensation in lieu of performance of a sale agreement. The Court termed the conduct a blatant attempt to misuse judicial process and derive “unjust enrichment.”

The dispute dates back to 1989, when the appellant paid ₹25,000 as earnest money under a sale agreement and took partial possession. After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court, by its judgment dated April 1, 2025, had dismissed the claim for specific performance but awarded ₹2 crore as equitable compensation — a sum meant to “balance equities” and “end the dispute.”

However, the appellant refused to vacate the premises and declined to accept the compensation deposited by the respondents. Both the executing court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed issuance of warrants for possession, which the appellant challenged before the Supreme Court.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the appeal, observing that the appellant had “shot himself in the foot” by obstructing execution. The Court stressed that once specific performance was denied, retaining possession while receiving massive compensation would be contrary to equity and fairness.

“An extraordinary amount of ₹2 crore was awarded to compensate the loss of bargain on a meagre advance of ₹25,000. Retaining both the possession and the money would amount to unjust enrichment,” the Court held.

Invoking the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit (an act of court shall prejudice no one), the Court said that any inadvertent omission in its earlier order regarding return of possession could not be exploited to gain unfair advantage. The delivery of possession, it held, was an “implied and necessary corollary” of the compensation order.

The Court upheld the orders of the executing and High Courts and imposed ₹10 lakh as costs for the appellant’s conduct.

Cause Title: Prem Aggarwal v. Mohan Singh & Ors.