This Supreme Court of India ruling from June 22 feels like one of those civil case decisions which may look technical at first,but actually matters a lot for ordinary property disputes also . Because court basically said,if someone went to court asking for injunction,you cannot just push money compensation on them instead.
Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside earlier ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court . That High Court had replaced decrees for removal of encroachments with monetary compensation,and Supreme Court clearly did not agree with that route.
And honestly,this point is not small ah. If plaintiff says “remove this encroachment”,court cannot behave like “take money and adjust” when that was never original plea .
Case came from two civil suits where plaintiff wanted removal of wall and lintel allegedly encroaching on his property . Trial court had ruled in plaintiff’s favour and directed removal of those structures . But later,High Court modified decree and ordered compensation instead.
This is where Supreme Court stepped in and said this approach was legally impermissible . Reason was simple enough: appellate court had granted relief which plaintiff had not even asked for.
Few things standing out clearly here:
- Plaintiffs cannot be forced to accept monetary compensation when their original plea sought an injunction.
- Executing courts cannot create new remedies or determine rights once a decree has ceased to exist.
- Courts must stick to reliefs sought by parties and cannot impose alternative solutions .
The court also criticised High Court for making plaintiff’s legal heirs accept compensation when original plaintiff never sought it in first place . And once trial court decree had been set aside,there was no surviving decree left for executing court to act upon .
And tbh,this feels like basic fairness only. If someone is fighting because their property is allegedly being encroached by wall and lintel,then money may not solve actual problem for them. Sometimes issue is not valuation,it is possession,boundary and right.
Supreme Court has now directed Punjab and Haryana High Court to reconsider appeals in accordance with law . It also pointed out need for faster resolution because appeals have been pending since 2008.
But this also leaves one uncomfortable thought… if civil suits keep pending for so many years,how many people end up being told to compromise with something they never even asked for?
