IMPORTANT POINTS
Objection to execution of compromise decree – In execution petition, primary onus lies on decree-holder to show that judgment debtor has wilfully disobeyed conditions of decree.

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The present Appeals arise from a long-standing and deeply rooted dispute between two sections of Kuruba community in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh i.e., the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta village and the Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli village. The controversy, extending over several decades, centers upon the performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy, who is the common deity worshipped by both the sects.

2. The litigation traces back nearly a century. The first in the series of suits was O.S. No.486 of 1927 filed before the District Munsif Court, Anantapur by members of the Kamatam (respondents herein) sect of Yerrayapalli, seeking custody of pooja articles and religious paraphernalia relating to Lord Sangalappa Swamy, which included items such as bronze horses, idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, and other articles of worship. Although these articles were of negligible material value, they carried immense sentimental and religious significance for the community.

3. On the other hand, the Kapadam (appellants herein) sect of Gungulakunta village resisted the claim. The suit, O.S. No. 486 of 1927, was dismissed, and an appeal, A.S. No. 114 of 1928 preferred before the District Judge, Anantapur, met with the same fate. While dismissing the appeal, the learned District Judge observed that a fresh suit could be filed in a representative capacity under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ¹ [For short ‘CPC’] for the proper management of the endowment, suggesting that such a proceeding would be appropriate to regulate the administration of the temple.

4. Acting upon those observations, the respondents family instituted O.S. No. 1 of 1931 before the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, in a representative capacity. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, where it was renumbered as O.S. No. 15 of 1933. The said suit sought to establish the rights of the respective sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja, and the custody of the idols and paraphernalia.

5. During the pendency of O.S. No. 15 of 1933, parties arrived at a compromise, which was recorded by the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. Under Clause (1) of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933, it was recorded that the appellants had been performing pooja to the deity till that date and meeting the associated expenses. It was agreed that the respondents would pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards their half-share of the pooja expenses. If the respondents failed to pay, they will lose their right to perform pooja.

6. Under Clause (2), the compromise further provided that both the groups would appoint two trustees each to supervise the performance of pooja and other religious activities and to maintain accounts. The decree further stipulated that the idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy should be installed alternately for six months each at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta village, and that the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three months in sequence.

7. The 1933 compromise decree was expected to bring an end to the long- standing feud between the two villages. However, decades later, the dispute re-emerged. The appellants alleged that in 1999, the respondents refused to rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the 1933 decree. Consequently, the appellants family filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000 in O.S. No.15 of 1933 before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, seeking execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 passed in O.S. No. 15 of 1933.

8. The respondents, arrayed as judgment-debtors in Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000, filed a counter and subsequently sought to amend the same by filing E.A. No. 686 of 2001. Upon dismissal of that application, they preferred C.R.P. No. 2777 of 2002 before the High Court of And