Supreme Court: In an appeal arising out of a special leave petition and concerned the execution of a compromise decree dated 14 July 2017 where the controversy centered on whether the Executing Court could modify the terms of the decree while enforcing it, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., set aside the impugned orders, holding that an executing court cannot go beyond the decree or vary its terms; it is bound to execute the decree as it stands, unless the decree is a nullity. The Court directed the Executing Court to execute the decree strictly “in its terms and tenor.”
Background
The dispute is regarding a non-agricultural land measuring 51R (54,895 sq. ft.), forming part of Plot No. 396(A) situated at Panchgani, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, District Satara, Maharashtra. The plaintiff—appellant had originally purchased 97.12R of land. Out of this, 57R was sold to the defendant—respondent, retaining 40.12R. Subsequently, the defendant resold 6R back to the plaintiff, resulting in the plaintiff holding 46.12R, while the defendant retained 51R. The present dispute relates to this 51R portion retained by the defendant.
Also Read: The 14 directions by Supreme Court to ensure timely execution of decrees
The defendant had entered into a registered agreement to sell the said 51R to the plaintiff on 17 April 2009. On failure to complete the transaction, the plaintiff instituted suit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 8 July 2017. Under the compromise, it was agreed that 10R of land would remain common land, jointly owned for access as a common road, the remaining 41R would be equally divided, with each party receiving 20.5R and the specific areas were to be determined through a survey, and the value of constructions was to be assessed by a Government valuer.
A compromise decree was subsequently drawn on 14 July 2017 incorporating the final demarcation of shares. The decree specifically described that the plaintiff has 20.5R share, including the residential bungalow, plinth-level construction on the southern side, and portions on the western side including two bungalows and the defendant has 20.5R share, situated on the western side of the plaintiff’s bungalow, extending up to the boundary of the two bungalows. The decree also mandated execution of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff upon payment of Rs. 10 lakhs, which stood already paid.
Both parties initiated execution proceedings independently. The defendant filed execution petition and became the decree-holder, while the plaintiff was treated as the judgment-debtor. The Executing Court, by order dated 19 July 2021, issued directions modifying the allocation of land under the compromise decree. These modifications were made on the reasoning that certain constructions on the extreme western side were not as per the sanctioned plan; allotting such portions to the defendant was impracticable and likely to cause inconvenience and a portion of 10R had already been sold to a third party by the plaintiff.
On review, by order dated 26 August 2021, further modifications were introduced. Subsequently, an order dated 11 October 2021 directed delivery of possession.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a writ petition challenging the orders dated 19 July 2021, 26 August 2021, and 11 October 2021. The High Court, however, dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21 April 2022, thereby upholding the Executing Court’s orders.
Issue
Whether the Executing Court had the jurisdiction to modify the terms of the compromise decree while executing it?
Analysis
The Court examined Section
The Court referred to Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, (1970) 1 SCC 670, where it was held that an executing court “cannot go behind the decree” and must take it according to its tenor and Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, (1977) 2 SCC 662, where it was held that the only exception is where the decree is a nullity due to lack of inherent jurisdiction. The Court clarified that none of these exceptions applied in the present case.
Also Read: Beyond the Decree Understanding Third-Party Objections against Execution by Possession
The Court observed that the compromise decree clearly and unequivocally described the portions of land allotted to each party and there was no dispute regarding the identity of the land. Therefore, the role of the Executing Court was confined to ensuring compliance with the decree, including execution of the sale deed and exchange of possession.
The Court held the reasons cited by the Executing Court, such as impracticability, unauthorized constructions, or prior sale of part of the land, were immaterial. These considerations could not justify altering the decree.
The Court further asserted that the reliance on Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan, (1956) 1 SCC 75, was misplaced, as that decision only permits resolution of disputes regarding identity or enforcement of reciprocal obligations, not modification of the decree itself.
Decision
The Court, hence, held that the Executing Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the terms of the compromise decree. Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders dated 19 July 2021 and 26 August 2021, as well as the consequential order dated 11 October 2021 with direction to the Executing Court to execute the decree strictly “in its terms and tenor.”
[Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh, 2026 INSC 340, decided on 9-4-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Pankaj Mithal
