The Supreme Court has reiterated that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same. Justice Pankaj Mithal, speaking for the bench along with Justice Prasanna B. Varale, observed that the jurisdiction of the 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 dispute arose out of a compromise decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.68 of 2012 concerning 51R (54895 sq. feet) of non-agricultural land of plot No.396(A) in village Panchgani, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, Satara district of Maharashtra. The plaintiff-appellant had earlier purchased 97.12R of the plot and sold 57R to the defendant-respondent, retaining 40.12R. The defendant-respondent sold back 6R to the plaintiff-appellant, leaving her with 51R. The defendant-respondent then entered into a registered agreement to sell the 51R to the plaintiff-appellant on 17.04.2009. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise on 08.07.2017. The compromise provided that 10R would remain common land for easementary rights while the remaining 41R would be equally divided, with each party getting 20.5R. The exact areas were to be ascertained by a surveyor and the value of existing constructions was to be determined by a Government valuer. The compromise decree was drawn on 14.07.2017 incorporating the respective shares of the parties as per the sanctioned map.
Both parties filed separate execution petitions. The defendant-respondent filed Execution Petition No.21 of 2018 claiming to be the decree holder. The executing court passed an order on 19.07.2021 modifying the area allotted to the parties on the ground that permanent constructions on the extreme western side were not as per the sanctioned plan and that part of the 10R common land had already been sold by the plaintiff-appellant to a third party. The defendant-respondent filed a review petition which was allowed on 26.08.2021, further modifying the executing court’s order. The plaintiff-appellant challenged these orders before the High Court in a writ petition which was dismissed on 21.04.2022. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the executing court has no jurisdiction to vary the terms of the decree. It can only ensure compliance with the reciprocal obligations as provided in the decree. The Court observed that the executing court manifestly erred in passing the orders dated 19.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 by altering the portions of land allotted to the parties under the compromise decree. The Court clarified that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the land falling into the shares of both the parties, as the compromise decree clearly described the portions. Therefore, the executing court was required to ensure that both parties fulfilled their obligations and exchanged the land as per the decree and that the sale deed was executed as directed. The Court held that the reasons cited by the executing court — such as constructions not being as per the sanctioned map or part of the land having been sold off — were immaterial.
The Supreme Court further reiterated the settled position of law as laid down in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman and Ors. and Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash. In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi, the Court had held that a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree and must take the decree according to its tenor. In Sunder Dass, the Court had clarified that the executing court can refuse to execute a decree if it is a nullity for lack of inherent jurisdiction, but otherwise it cannot question the legality or correctness of the decree.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the orders dated 19.07.2021, 26.08.2021 and the consequential order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the executing court, and directed the executing court to execute the compromise decree in its terms and tenor. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Case Title: Maurice W. Innis Versus Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. __ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8166 of 2022)
Date of Judgment: 09 April 2026
Coram: Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 