1. Parties entered a compromise decree in a suit for specific performance concerning the division and exchange of landed property. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 368
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Maurice W. INNIS – Appellant
Versus
Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4321 of 2026 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8166 of 2022]
Decided On : 09-04-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of decree – Executing Court has no jurisdiction to vary terms of decree – If decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both parties in pith and substance, unless decree is a nullity.
Execution of decree – Executing Court has no jurisdiction to vary terms of decree – If decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both parties in pith and substance, unless decree is a nullity.
Subject
Civil Law - Execution of Decree
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 47 – Execution of decree – Power of Executing Court – Jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to decree as passed and not to assume role of Trial Court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree – Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond decree sought to be executed – It has to execute decree as it is without changing the same – Executing Court has to strictly conform to decree under execution – If decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both parties in pith and substance, unless decree is a nullity – Executing Court has no jurisdiction to vary terms of decree – It is only where dispute as to identity of land which has to be given as part of obligation to other side arises, Court can decide the same – In instant case, merely for reasons that exchange of some portions of land may not be practicable for reason that constructions on it are not as per sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial – Execution Court directed to execute decree in its terms and tenor. (Paras 24, 27, 29 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Executing Court varied area allotted to the parties under compromise decree and allotted them some different portions, thus in effect modifying the compromise decree. Writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2022. Thus, the orders passed by the Executing Court were upheld.
Findings of Court:
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. Accordingly, both the above orders dated 19.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 and the consequential order dated 11.10.2021 are hereby set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The Executing Court cannot modify the terms of a decree and must execute it according to its original tenor under Section 47 CPC. (!) (!) - The Executing Court has jurisdiction to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree but cannot go behind or alter the decree; its role is not to re-trial or substitute its own terms. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Where a decree provides reciprocal obligations, the Executing Court must ensure compliance as per the decree and cannot vary its terms unless the decree is a nullity; the court cannot alter land identity or exchange terms. (!) (!) (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Baliyan, Adv. Mr. Tilak Vij, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Baliyan, Adv. Mr. Tilak Vij, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The appellant argued the executing court cannot modify a decree, whereas the respondent contended the court may interpret it to ensure executability regarding reciprocal obligations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. The court observed that an executing court lacks jurisdiction to alter the terms of a decree or vary the land identified therein under the guise of interpretation. (Para 24 , 29 , 30 )
4. Executing courts cannot go behind the decree to modify its terms; they must execute the decree as it stands, ensuring compliance with specified reciprocal obligations. (Para 24 , 27 , 29 )
5. The appellate court set aside the modification orders and directed the executing court to execute the compromise decree in its original terms and tenor. (Para 30 , 31 )
6. Can an executing court modify the terms of a compromise decree to address practical difficulties in implementation?
No. The executing court cannot go behind the decree or alter its terms. It must execute the decree as it stands, provided the decree is not a nullity, and it cannot substitute its own view to resolve perceived practical difficulties. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 )
7. Under what circumstances can an executing court go behind a decree?
An executing court can only examine the validity of a decree if it is a nullity due to a lack of inherent jurisdiction in the court that passed it. (Para 26 )
8. What is the scope of an executing court's power when a decree involves reciprocal obligations?
The court can ensure that both parties fulfill their reciprocal obligations as directed by the decree. If a dispute arises regarding the identity of land to be exchanged, the court may clarify the identity, provided it does not vary the terms or scope of the decree. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The dispute in this appeal is in connection with the execution of a compromise decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in a Civil Suit No. 68 of 2012.
4. The suit land measures 51R (54895 sq. feet). It is a nonagricultural land of plot No. 396(A) situate in village Panchgani, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, Satara in the State of Maharashtra.
5. The plaintiff-appellant had purchased 97.12R area of land of plot no. 396(A) in village Panchgani as referred to above. The plaintiff-appellant initially sold 57R of the aforesaid land purchased by him to the defendant-respondent. Thus, retaining only 40.12R with himself. The purchaser i.e., the defendant-respondent sold back 6R of the said land to the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant became the owner of a total of 46.12R of the aforesaid plot of land. The defendant-respondent after selling 6R to the plaintiff-appellant, remained with only 51R of the land out of the 57R initially purchased by him. The dispute is regarding this 51R of land retained by the defendant-respondent.
6. The defendant-respondent entered into an agreement to sell the aforesaid 51R of land to the plaintiff-appellant vide registered agreement dated 17.04.2009. The plaintiff-appellant filed suit no. 68 of 2012 against the defendant-respondent praying for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 17.04.2009. In the said suit, parties entered into a compromise on 08.07.2017. The said compromise inter alia provided that 10R of the said land would remain a common land in common ownership of both the partners. The remaining 41R of land would be equally divided between them to the extent of 20.5R each. The area of 20.5R to be retained by each one of them would be ascertained by the surveyor and the value of the bungalow and the plinth level construction existing on part of the said land would be determined by the Government valuer. Accordingly, a decree would be drawn.
7. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, the suit was decreed after completing the formalities of the survey and valuation. Finally, a decree was drawn on 14.07.2017 incorporating the respective areas falling into the share of each party.
8. The aforesaid compromise decree states that the plaintiff-appellant who had purchased 97.12R of plot No. 396(A) of village Panchgani had a sanctioned map dated 09.04.2010 which is part and parcel of the compromise and that both parties agree to the said map. The disputed land is only 51R which is situate on the western side of plot No. 396(A). The area of 10R is common land for exercise of easementary right as common road for access to their properties.
9. The aforesaid compromise decree in unequivocal terms provided that the area of residential bungalow and the area of construction up to the plinth level towards the southern side of the bungalow plus the area on the western side of plot No. 396(A) including two bungalows shown in the sanctioned map, having a total area of 20.5R goes to the share of the plaintiff-appellant. Thus, the area of 20.5R falling into the share of plaintiff-appellant was clearly described.
10. Similarly, the area of 20.5R falling into the share of defendant-respondent was described as situate on the western side of the bungalow of the plaintiff-appellant and includes structures up to the plinth level extending up to the boundary of the two bungalows on eastern side.
11. The decree also provided that the defendant-respondent shall execute the sale deed of the property falling into the share of the plaintiff-appellant on consideration of Rs.10 lakhs which is already paid.
12. The said decree was put into execution by both the parties separately. The plaintiff-appellant filed Execution Petition No. 38 of 2020, which allegedly remains pending as on date. The defendant-respondent filed a separate Execution Petition No. 21 of 2018 for the execution of the aforesaid compromise decree dated 14.0
