In Execution Petition, Onus On Decree-Holder To Show Violation By Judgment Debtor : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 12) observed that the decree can't be executed based on the presumption. The onus is on the decree-holder to prove that there's a violation of the terms of the decree by the judgment debtor.

“It is a trite law that in execution petition, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the conditions of the decree.”, observed a bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi while hearing a case where the executing court had enforced a 1933 compromise decree entered between the appellants and respondents regarding the worship rights and management of the Lord Sangalappa Swamy Temple in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the appellants, on the assumption that the respondents had failed to comply with the decree's stipulation to rotate worship rights in the appellants' favour.

The dispute dates back to the year 1927, when the Kamatam sect of Yerrayapalli village filed a suit against the Kapadam sect of Gungulakunta village seeking possession of certain idols, bronze horses and other ritual items. The matter was eventually resolved through a compromise in O.S. No. 15 of 1933, under which both sects agreed to jointly worship the deity and share responsibilities in a rotating manner.

Under the terms of that decree, the idols were to be kept alternately for six months each in the two villages, with poojas performed every three months. Both groups were to contribute equally to the expenses, and four trustees—two from each sect—were to be appointed to maintain accounts. The compromise also stipulated that if the Kamatam sect failed to pay Rs. 2,000 as its share of the pooja expenses, it would lose its right to perform worship.

After several decades of peace, the dispute resurfaced when the Kapadam sect filed an execution petition in 2000, alleging that the Kamatam sect had failed to comply with the rotational arrangement and had withheld possession of the idols. The Execution Court ruled in favour of the Kapadam group, but the High Court reversed that decision, finding no sufficient evidence of disobedience of the decree.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the long-standing possession of the idols by the respondents amounted to violation of the compromise terms. The Bench, however, agreed with the High Court's finding that the appellants had not produced any credible proof of the respondents' alleged breach.

Upholding the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra observed that the Executing Court erred in allowing the execution based on presumption rather than proof, observing that "findings based on presumption cannot replace proof."

The Court criticized the executing court's approach of assuming that the Respondents were in possession of the property since no quarrel occurred in 1933 till the day of filing of an application for execution by the Appellant.

“The Executing Court appears to have assumed that, since no quarrel was raised for several decades, the arrangement must have been in operation and that the respondents must, therefore, be in possession. Such inference, based merely on the absence of earlier dispute, is impermissible. Findings based on presumption cannot replace proof.”, the court said.

The Court observed that apart from the clause concerning the rotation of worship rights, several other conditions of the compromise decree such as the appointment of trustees, maintenance of accounts, and other key financial obligations had also not been fulfilled. This, the Court noted, further undermined the appellants' claim that only the respondents had failed to comply with the decree's terms.

“we are of the view that the appellants had failed to establish violation of the compromise decree by the respondents. The burden of proving violation of the decree rests squarely on the decree-holders. In the absence of cogent proof of such violation, the execution cannot be sustained. The burden of proof, which lay upon the appellants, had not been discharged. The Executing Court fell into an error in allowing the execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court's order.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS VERSUS KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1093

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv.