Overview: Veron Vinendh Singh and Shaileshni Mani Grounder, the plaintiffs, sued Hari Sharma, alleging unjust enrichment from two mortgages granted in 2009 without receiving any funds or benefits, arguing no legal obligation for the payments made, which totaled approximately $51,000.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The plaintiffs claimed they received no monetary advances or benefits in return for the mortgages, hence there was no justification for their payments to Sharma. Sharma countered that the plaintiffs did obtain substantial indirect benefits from the financial dealings, which were secured by the mortgages. The case delved deeply into the details of the property transactions involved and the history of financial arrangements between the parties.

Judgment: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment. It found that the plaintiffs had, in fact, benefited from the transactions indirectly and that these benefits were part and parcel of the agreements made, which justified the mortgages in question.

Costs/Award: The document does not specify the total amount of costs and/or awards granted in favor of Hari Sharma, the successful party. However, typically in such cases, costs may be awarded to the successful party, subject to the court's discretion.