The Supreme Court found that during the course of the trial, the complainant presented the Tribunal with documents indicating that the value of the property was six lakhs and thirty thousand rupees on November 20, 2006. The applicant also recorded in the minutes a document indicating the value of the property as of April 1, 1999. The Supreme Court found that, although the above aspects were taken into account by the Tribunal and the first Court of Appeal, they were not accepted, while granting discharge of a certain benefit in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court found that the contractual terms, the conduct of the parties at the time the contract was concluded and the circumstances in which the contract was entered into gave the respondent an unfair advantage over the applicants, making it unfair to impose the exemption from the special benefit. Given that the complainant proposed to pay ten lakhs as compensation instead of a certain benefit, the Supreme Court found that the payment of an 15-lakh rupee award would meet the objectives of justice. Although the Supreme Court found that a sale agreement had been reached between the complainants and the respondent`s father on June 2, 1999, but did not establish the facts of the case. The thought agreed between the parties was rupees One lakh and sixty thousand, of which a quantity of rupees was paid to sell sixty thousand at the time of the implementation of the agreement. The sale is expected to close within three years with payment of Rupien One Lakh`s balance. On May 7, 2002, the respondent issued a legal reference to the implementation of the sale agreement. In response to the legal note, the complainant`s defence was, among other things, that the sale agreement had been executed only as collateral for a loan transaction, since the complainant`s father was a lender (which is a recognized fact). The Supreme Court found that there was no error in the finding of the facts by the three courts and that, therefore, the judgment on the merits could not be set aside.
The applicant, however, drew the attention of the Supreme Court to another argument that the property is the only property that retains the complainant`s property and has an extremely high value. The complainant also stated that they were willing to pay a sum of Ten Lakhs rupees, or more, to retain ownership of the complaint. In its decision, the Supreme Court considered this limited question/alternative argument. One of the situations that arise for the courts in the event of a special execution of an agreement to sell a property is the increase in the price of the property during the litigation. However, the courts have indicated that the exemption from the specific benefit cannot be denied solely because of the phenomenal increase in prices during the rationalization of litigation. In such cases, the principle of equalization of actions is again applied by the courts: and before the court grants or refuses the exemption of certain benefits, the court is required to assess other decisive aspects, such as the issue. B to know who is the defaulting party, whether one party attempts to gain an unfair advantage over the other, the hardness that can result from the seller`s management of a given benefit, the unfair advantage that the buyer can obtain over the seller if a defined benefit is granted, and so on. Baker J. indicated that Viscount Dunedin was defined in the Board of Directors against Cayzer, Irvine and Co.  A.C.
610 to 617 as “what makes the measures possible.” The judge found that the applicant did not have an appeal for breach on the basis of an objection to the breach of condition or guarantee of utility in the period between April 2002, when the agreement was reached, and October 2002, when the agreement was implemented because until enforcement could not be said that it was a breach of the seller`s obligations.