Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree On Ground Of Practical Difficulties : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the execution court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute the decree as it is. “(Executing Court) has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same. It is settled in law that the jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.”, the court observed. A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside the Bombay High Court's decision which has upheld the Executing Court's decision to modify the civil court's compromise decree. A compromise decree was passed where the parties compromised to exchange some portions of the land. The Executing Court modified the decree merely because the exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off. The High Court's decision to uphold the executing court's modification of the compromise decree prompted the plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Mithal restored the compromise decree, noting that the executing court is not empowered to vary the terms of the decree.“…the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the decree. It is only where the dispute as to the identity of the land which has to be given as part of the obligation to the other side arises, the court can decide the same.”, the court said. In this case, since the compromise decree clearly stipulated the manner and portion of land to be bifurcated amongst the parties, therefore it was improper on the part of the Executing Court to vary the area allotted to the parties under the compromise decree and allot them some different portions, thus in effect modifying the compromise decree, the court said. The Court held that the executing court erred in bypassing the terms of the decree merely on the ground that the construction deviated from the sanctioned plan or that part of the land had been sold, particularly when the identity of the parties and the terms of the compromise decree were undisputed. “In the instant case, there is no dispute of identity of the land falling into the shares of both the parties. The compromise decree clearly describes the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties. Therefore, the Executing Court has to ensure that both the parties fulfil their obligations and exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed is executed as directed. Merely for the reasons that exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial. Since the Executing Court in passing the orders dated 19.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 has gone beyond its jurisdiction and instead of directing for the execution of the decree as it stands, has altered its terms by changing certain portions of the land allotted to the parties, the same are unsustainable in law.”, the court held. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court's compromise decree was restored with the direction to execute the decree as it is.HeadnoteCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 47 – Jurisdiction of Executing Court – Power to modify decree – Held: The Executing Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed - It must execute the decree as it stands, without changing its terms or assuming the role of a trial court to substitute its own view - Even if the execution of certain portions of the land as per the decree is deemed "impracticable" due to unauthorized construction or third-party sales, these reasons are immaterial and do not authorize the Executing Court to alter the terms of a compromise decree. [Paras 24 - 30]Execution of Compromise Decree – Identity of Property – Held: Where a compromise decree clearly describes the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties, there is no dispute regarding identity - The Executing Court must strictly conform to the decree and ensure both parties fulfill their reciprocal obligations in pith and substance. [Relied on Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 670; Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash (1977) 2 SCC 662; Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors. (1956) 1 SCC 75; Paras 27 – 30]Cause Title: MAURICE W. INNIS VERSUS LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 395Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR (argued by) Mr. Sanjeev Baliyan, Adv. Mr. Tilak Vij, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv....

Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree On Ground Of Practical Difficulties : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Executing Court has to execute the decree as it stands, the Court stated.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree On Ground Of Practical Difficulties : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

The Executing Court has to execute the decree as it stands, the Court stated.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers