Onus on Decree Holder to Show Violations

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others (2025) dismissed appeals challenging the High Court's decision to set aside an execution order, emphasizing that decree-holders must provide cogent proof of violation rather than relying on mere presumptions. 

What was the Background of Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others (2025) Case? 

• The dispute involved two sections of the Kuruba community in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh over custody of idols and performance of rituals related to Lord Sangalappa Swamy. 
• The litigation began nearly a century ago with O.S. No. 486 of 1927, seeking custody of religious articles including bronze horses and idols. 
• After initial dismissals, parties filed O.S. No. 15 of 1933 under Section 92 CPC for proper endowment management. 

The 1933 Compromise Decree: 

• On November 1, 1933, parties arrived at a compromise with two key clauses:  
  • Clause (1): Respondents would pay Rs. 2,000/- towards pooja expenses; failure would result in loss of pooja rights. 
  • Clause (2): Both groups would appoint two trustees each; idols would alternate between villages for six months each; pooja would rotate every three months. 

Revival and Execution 

• In 1999, appellants alleged respondents refused to rotate idols as per the decree. 
• Appellants filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000. 
• The Executing Court held the petition maintainable and on September 13, 2005, directed respondents to return idols within one month. 
• The High Court, through its judgment dated January 6, 2012, set aside the execution order, finding no proof of violation of the compromise decree despite the petition being maintainable and within limitation.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court emphasized that in execution petitions, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to prove that the judgment debtor has wilfully disobeyed the decree conditions. 
• The appellants failed to establish violation through cogent evidence; findings based on presumption cannot replace proof. 
• The parties in the execution proceedings were not parties to the original 1933 suit, and their testimonies consisted of bare assertions without independent witnesses or documentary proof. 
• PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that there were no accounts of temple income, no sharing of income, and he was unaware of any Rs. 2,000/- payment to ancestors. 
• The Court noted that Clause (1) indicated appellants had possession in 1933, and no evidence showed possession ever passed to respondents. 
• The non-payment of Rs. 2,000/- by respondents supported the contention that the compromise was never acted upon. 
• No evidence showed compliance with Clause (2) requiring trustee appointments and account maintenance. 
• When facts are especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving those facts rests on them. 
• The Executing Court erred in allowing execution based on mere presumption without proof. 
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeals. 

Who is a Decree Holder? 

Decree Holder: 

• Section 2(3) of CPC defines the term decree holder.  
• Decree holder means any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.  
• The term decree holder denotes a person: 
  • In whose favour a decree has been passed. 
  • In whose favour an order capable of execution has been made. 
  • Whose name appears in the decree, either as plaintiff or defendant and the following conditions are satisfied: 
    • The decree must be capable of execution.  
    • The said person, by the terms of the decree itself or from its nature, should be legally entitled to seek its execution. 
• In Ajudhia Prasad v. The UP Govt. through the Collector (1947), the Allahabad High Court considered the scope of the expression decree holder. The Court held that it is clear from this that a person in whose favour an order capable of execution has been made is also a decree holder.  
  • It is also evident from this definition that a decree-holder need not be a party to the suit.   

Holder of Decree and Decree Holder: 

• Though the terms of decree holder and holder of decree appear to be identical but there is a legal distinction between the two terms.  
  • The term holder of a decree used in Order XXI Rule 10 of CPC is very wide and it not only encompasses decree holder but also considers the transferee of a decree and the legal representative of the decree-holder. It takes into consideration the parties other than whose name appears on the decree. 
  • Whereas the term decree holder includes any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made.