CIVIL PROCEDURE — Execution of compromise decree — Proof of breach — Decree-holder seeking execution must discharge primary onus of proving that judgment-debtor willfully disobeyed terms of the decree; execution cannot rest on mere presumption arising from absence of earlier dispute. (Paras 22–26, 28) EVIDENCE — Burden and standard in execution proceedings — Where facts (possession, payments, appointments of trustees, accounts) are specially within knowledge of decree-holder, burden to prove compliance or breach rests on them; bare assertions of interested witnesses unsupported by independent or documentary evidence are insufficient. (Paras 23–27)

2025 INSC 1307
KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS VERSUS KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
   CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 281-282 OF 2015 … APPELLANT(S) ... RESPONDENT(S)

II. HEADNOTES 

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Execution of compromise decree — Proof of breach —
Decree-holder seeking execution must discharge primary onus of proving that judgment-debtor willfully disobeyed terms of the decree; execution cannot rest on mere presumption arising from absence of earlier dispute. (Paras 22–26, 28)

EVIDENCE — Burden and standard in execution proceedings —
Where facts (possession, payments, appointments of trustees, accounts) are specially within knowledge of decree-holder, burden to prove compliance or breach rests on them; bare assertions of interested witnesses unsupported by independent or documentary evidence are insufficient. (Paras 23–27)

HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS — Compromise for religious ritual management —
A historic compromise decree governing rotation of idols and appointment of trustees is enforceable only if proven to have been acted upon or if breach is established by cogent proof; non-performance or setting up of separate idols over time may indicate non-execution of compromise and negate entitlement to execution relief. (Paras 5–7, 25–28)

REVIEW OF EXECUTING COURT — Interference by High Court —
High Court rightly set aside Executing Court’s order when execution was allowed on impermissible presumptions and absence of cogent proof; concurrent finding of non-proof not interfered with. (Paras 13, 28–29)

RELIEF — Appeals dismissed. (Para 29)

III. CASE FACTS 

1. Dispute between two Kuruba community sections in Anantapur District — Kapadam families (Gungulakunta) and Kamatam families (Yerrayapalli) — concerning custody and rotation of idols and paraphernalia of Lord Sangalappa Swamy; litigation traces to O.S. No.486 of 1927. (Paras 1–4)

2. A representative suit O.S. No.15 of 1933 (filed 1931 → renumbered 1933) resulted in a compromise decree dated 01.11.1933: (a) appellants were performing pooja and to meet expenses, respondents to pay Rs.2,000 as half-share (failure to pay → loss of right); (b) appointment of two trustees each to supervise rituals and maintain accounts; (c) idols to be installed alternately six months at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta and pooja to rotate every three months. (Paras 4–6)

3. In 1999 respondents allegedly refused to rotate idols per the 1933 terms; appellants filed Execution Petition No.59 of 2000 in O.S. No.15 of 1933 seeking execution of the 1933 compromise. (Para 7)

4. Procedural history: respondents sought amendment (E.A. No.686/2001) → High Court allowed amendment in C.R.P. No.2777/2002 and remitted to Executing Court to decide preliminary maintainability; Executing Court held EP maintainable (14.10.2003); High Court dismissed revision C.R.P. No.6055/2003 (12.04.2005) holding EP maintainable but left questions of limitation and locus standi open; Executing Court on 13.09.2005 allowed EP directing return of idols within one month (Para 8–10).

5. Respondents filed Civil Revision Petition No.5224/2005; High Court allowed revision on 06.01.2012 holding that although maintainability, limitation and locus standi issues were resolved in favour of appellants, execution could not be sustained on facts — appellants failed to prove respondents violated the 1933 compromise; review dismissed 28.01.2013. (Paras 11–13)

6. Evidence before Executing Court included PW-1 (Kapadam Sangalappa — appellant No.1) for appellants and RW-1 (Kamatam Narayana — respondent No.3, now deceased) for respondents; parties to EP were not parties to original 1933 suit. (Paras 23)

IV. HELD / COURT’S FINDINGS 

1. Primary onus on decree-holder not discharged.
   Appellants (decree-holders) failed to prove that possession of idols ever passed to respondents or that respondents violated the compromise dated 01.11.1933. The Executing Court’s order was based on presumption and bare assertions of PW-1 and RW-1 without independent or documentary corroboration; such inference is impermissible. (Paras 24–26, 28)

2. No convincing proof of payment condition or trusteeship.
   PW-1 admitted absence of accounts and inability to identify precisely which articles existed at the time of compromise; there was no proof of respondents having paid Rs.2,000 as required or of appointment/ functioning of trustees as per Clause (2). Facts especially within the knowledge of the appellants were not proved by them. (Paras 25–27)

3. Execution unsustainable on facts; High Court rightly interfered.
   Given the decree-holder’s failure to establish breach, the Executing Court erred in allowing execution on mere presumption; the High Court correctly set aside the Executing Court’s order. (Paras 24, 28–29)

4. Appeals dismissed.
   Supreme Court finds no reason to interfere with High Court judgment(s) and dismisses Civil Appeals Nos.281–282 of 2015. (Para 29)