Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of the compromise decree – Temple dispute between two sections of Kuruba community, Kapadam families-appellant and Kamatam families-respondent – Dispute as regards performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with their common deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy – Suit filed by the respondent family seeking establishment of the rights of the respective sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja, and the custody of the idols and paraphernalia – Compromise decree passed whereby respondents to pay Rs 2000/- , half share of pooja expenses, and idol of the Lord to be installed alternately for six months each at their villages, and the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three months – Decades later, the appellants alleged that the respondents refused to rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the compromise decree – Appellants filed execution petition seeking execution of the compromise decree – Petition allowed directing the respondents to return the idols and pooja articles to the appellants – However, the High Court held that the execution petition could not be sustained as there was no proof presented by the appellants that the respondents had violated the terms of the compromise decree – Review thereagainst also dismissed – Interference with: Held: Not called for – In execution petition, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the conditions of the decree, however, no evidence led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols ever passed to the respondents – Case of the respondents/judgmentdebtors that the compromise was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the appellants/decree-holders upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs.2,000/- to the appellants, appears highly probable – Non-payment of Rs.2,000/- by the respondents/judgment debtors clearly proved from the admission of PW-1 – No evidence of compliance of the clause of the compromise decree, requiring appointment of two trustees from each sect to supervise and manage rituals and maintain accounts – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else – Appellants failed to establish violation of the compromise decree by the respondents – Burden of proving violation of the decree rests squarely on the decree-holders – In the absence of cogent proof of such violation, the execution cannot be sustained – Burden of proof, which lay upon the appellants, had not been discharged – Executing Court erred in allowing the execution of the compromise decree on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court’s order – Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. [Paras 24-29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.