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.

Cause Title: MAURICE W. INNIS VERSUS LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

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. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv.