Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000281-000282 – 2015 |
| Diary Number | 12129/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing law on burden of proof in execution petitions |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure (execution of decrees) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Supreme Court held that execution of a compromise decree requires cogent proof of willful disobedience by the judgment-debtor. An executing court cannot infer breach merely from the absence of earlier dispute. The burden to prove violation lies squarely on the decree-holder and cannot be shifted or assumed. In the absence of evidence—documentary or testimonial—that possession of idols passed to respondents or that agreed conditions (payment of ₹2,000 and appointment of trustees) were fulfilled, the executing court’s reliance on presumption was impermissible. The High Court rightly set aside the execution order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The dispute arose between two Kuruba community sects over custody and worship of Lord Sangalappa Swamy’s idols, culminating in a 1933 compromise decree providing for rotation of pooja, payment of ₹2,000 by one sect, and trusteeship arrangements. Decades later, appellants filed an execution petition alleging non-compliance from 1999. The Executing Court ordered delivery of idols on presumed breach; the High Court set aside that order for lack of proof. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts governed by the Supreme Court (High Courts and subordinate courts) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Decree-holders bear the primary burden to prove willful violation of a compromise decree before seeking execution under Section 9 CPC.
- Executing courts cannot rely on presumptions or absence of prior disputes to infer breach—actual evidence of possession transfer or non-compliance is essential.
- Conditions in a compromise (e.g., payment obligations, trustee appointments) must be strictly established on record to sustain any execution effort.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Acknowledged that respondents did not appeal maintainability; only question was actual breach and executability.
- Noted trite law placing onus on decree-holder to prove disobedience; presumption cannot replace proof.
- Scrutinised Executing Court’s reliance on absence of earlier dispute and bare assertions of PW-1 and RW-1; found no independent or documentary evidence of breach.
- Highlighted non-compliance with key clauses—no proof of ₹2,000 payment or trustee appointments—and undisputed presumption that appellants remained in possession post-1933.
- Concluded that failure to discharge burden warranted setting aside execution; High Court’s interference was justified.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Petitioners):
- High Court wrongly disturbed Executing Court’s factual findings.
- Respondents must possess the original idols; impossible they worshipped replicas.
- Failure of respondents to produce the idols demonstrates breach.
Respondents:
- No evidence they were ever in possession or that a transfer under the decree occurred.
- Condition of ₹2,000 payment by respondents was never complied with.
- Compromise was never acted upon; execution petition lacked factual foundation.
Factual Background
The long-running dispute between two Kuruba sects over the worship and custody of Lord Sangalappa Swamy’s idols led to a 1933 compromise decree detailing rotation of pooja duties, payment of ₹2,000 by one sect, and appointment of trustees. In 1999, one sect alleged non-compliance with these terms and filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000. The Executing Court ordered delivery of idols on presumed breach. The High Court set aside that execution order for lack of proof, and the Supreme Court has now upheld that decision.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 9, CPC: Court’s jurisdiction to execute any decree under the Code, including compromise decrees.
- Order XXI, Rule 31, CPC: Authority to issue warrant for delivery of property in execution.
- Section 42, Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987: Held not to oust CPC jurisdiction over execution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed → Existing law on burden of proof in execution petitions reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.