Interest of Justice Overrides Arithmetical Exactitude: Supreme Court Reduces Decretal Payment to ₹15 Lakhs in Long-Standing Mortgage Dispute

“Equitable Resolution Must End Protracted Litigation”, In a significant exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the Supreme Court on 16th July 2025 intervened to bring closure to a long-running mortgage recovery dispute by directing a reduced lump sum payment, acknowledging the prolonged litigation and substantial sums already paid.

Delivering the order in the case of Umedraj Jain v. V. Sudarsanan, a Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted, “Having considered the matter in detail… the interest of justice will be sub-served if we direct the appellant to pay ₹15 lakhs as full and final settlement.”

The case stemmed from a 2010 decree where the respondent, a mortgagee, secured a decree for ₹79.69 lakhs, inclusive of 9% annual interest on a principal sum of ₹58.50 lakhs loaned under a mortgage through title deeds. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant had purchased the mortgaged property from the original defendants. Despite failed impleadment attempts, the appellant resisted execution, leading to prolonged litigation spanning over a decade.

The Court noted that “the prolonged litigation has come to a stage where the appellant has ultimately paid ₹1.15 crore,” following which proclamation proceedings were closed by the High Court’s Master on 12.08.2016.

However, the respondent re-approached the Single Judge contending an additional sum of ₹19.54 lakhs remained unpaid. The Single Judge, followed by affirmation from the Division Bench, directed the appellant to pay the additional sum.

The Supreme Court observed that “the parties were unable to settle the dispute despite our suggestion during hearing,” and reflected on the inequities of dragging the litigation further. The Court held that a fair resolution, considering previous payments and passage of time, was necessary.

In a definitive direction, the Court ordered, “The appeal is allowed in part and the appellant shall pay ₹15 lakhs within two months as full and final settlement of all dues in complete satisfaction of the final decree.”

Significantly, the Court clarified that “this order is confined to the facts of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent,” emphasizing its case-specific equitable intervention.

This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s pragmatic approach in balancing substantive rights with the need to conclude litigation that has outlived its utility, ensuring both parties receive finality and closure.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2025