Civil Procedure — Execution — Compromise decree (01.11.1933) — Execution petition (E.P. No.59 of 2000) for delivery of idols and pooja articles — decree-holders must prove willful disobedience/violation by judgment-debtors — finding of Executing Court allowing execution quashed where decree-holders failed to lead cogent evidence showing possession by judgment-debtors or breach of decree. (Paras 22–28)

KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS VERSUS KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

J U D G M E N T PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 281-282 OF 2015

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 11, 2025.

HEADNOTES (court-style)

1. Civil Procedure — Execution — Compromise decree (01.11.1933) — Execution petition (E.P. No.59 of 2000) for delivery of idols and pooja articles — decree-holders must prove willful disobedience/violation by judgment-debtors — finding of Executing Court allowing execution quashed where decree-holders failed to lead cogent evidence showing possession by judgment-debtors or breach of decree. (Paras 22–28)

2. Evidence — Burden of proof — Decree-holder bears primary onus in execution proceedings to establish that judgment-debtor contravened decree; mere presumptions or uncorroborated oral assertions by witnesses not party to original suit are insufficient to sustain execution. (Paras 24–26, 28)

3. Hindu Religious Institutions/Endowments — Dispute concerning custody of idols and ritual paraphernalia — compromise decree providing for rotation of idols and appointment of trustees — failure to establish compliance with trustee appointment and accounts undermines execution claim. (Paras 5–6, 27)

4. Appellate review — High Court's quashing of Executing Court's order upheld where evidence on record did not support factual conclusion of possession/violation; appellate interference valid where trial/execute court's findings rest on impermissible presumption rather than proof. (Paras 23–29)

5. Remedies — Appeals dismissed; impugned judgments of High Court affirmed. (Para 29)

FACTS (concise, structured)

1. Parties & Context: Longstanding communal dispute between two sections of the Kuruba community in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh — Kapadam families of Gungulakunta (appellants) and Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli (respondents) — concerning custody and worship of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, including idols and paraphernalia of religious significance.

2. Early Litigation & Compromise (1933): Initial suit O.S. No.486 of 1927 (Kamatam plaintiffs) dismissed; a representative suit O.S. No.15 of 1933 followed, culminating in a recorded compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. The compromise provided (inter alia): (i) appellants had been performing pooja and respondents to pay Rs.2,000/- as half-share of pooja expenses (failure to pay would forfeit right to perform pooja); (ii) appointment of two trustees each to supervise rituals and maintain accounts; and (iii) rotation of idols between villages for six months each, with pooja performance rotating every three months.

3. Renewed Dispute & Execution (1999–2005): Alleging breach of the compromise (non-rotation and retention of idols by respondents since 1999), appellants filed Execution Petition No.59 of 2000 seeking delivery of idols. Executing Court allowed execution in 2005 directing return of idols; respondents challenged this order in High Court.

4. High Court Proceedings: High Court (2012) allowed respondents' revision, holding that while execution petition was maintainable and not barred by limitation, the appellants failed to prove factual breach of the 1933 compromise. Review dismissed (2013). Appellants appealed to Supreme Court (Civil Appeals 281–282 of 2015).

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1. Whether the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 was capable of execution on the facts.

2. Whether the respondents had violated the terms of the compromise decree as alleged by appellants.

REASONS, FINDINGS & HELD 

A. Burden & Nature of Proof in Execution

1. The primary onus in execution proceedings lies on the decree-holders to prove that the judgment-debtors have willfully disobeyed or violated the decree. (Para 26)

2. Mere presumption or inference drawn from absence of a prior dispute is insufficient; proof, not presumption, is the basis for execution. Findings cannot rest on uncorroborated oral assertions by witnesses who were not parties to the original suit. (Paras 24–25)

B. On the Evidence in the Present Case

3. The Executing Court accepted appellants' version on inadequate evidence — PW-1 and RW-1 gave bare assertions without independent corroboration or documentary proof; none were parties to the 1933 suit. (Para 24)

4. PW-1's own testimony undermines the appellants' case: admissions show absence of maintained accounts, no proof of Rs.2,000/- payments, purchase and replacement of ritual items over decades, inability to identify which articles existed at the time of compromise — all indicating that the appellants could not reliably prove transfer of possession to respondents or their breach. (Paras 26)

5. No evidence was produced to show that trustees were appointed and accounts maintained as required by Clause (2) of the compromise; facts especially within appellants' knowledge were not proved by them. (Para 27)

C. Conclusion on Execution & Appellate Orders

6. In absence of cogent proof of violation, execution could not be sustained; the Executing Court erred in ordering execution on mere presumption. The High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court's order. (Paras 28–29)

7. There is no merit in the appeals; the judgments of the High Court are affirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (Para 29)

ORDER

The Civil Appeals (Nos.281–282 of 2015) are dismissed. The impugned judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (setting aside the Executing Court's order permitting execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933) are affirmed.