MAURICE W. INNIS v. LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH
Executing Court Cannot Go Behind or Modify Decree Terms; Jurisdiction under Section 47 CPC Limited to Execution as per Tenor of Decree.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 340
Decision Date: 09-04-2026
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure; Law of Execution; Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Facts: The appellant and respondent were embroiled in a dispute over a plot of land measuring 51R in village Panchgani. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance, which culminated in a compromise decree dated 14.07.2017. This decree specifically partitioned the land, allotting 20.5R to each party and leaving 10R as common land for easementary rights. The decree also required the respondent to execute a sale deed for the appellant's share upon a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs, which had already been paid. During execution proceedings, the Executing Court modified the allotment of land portions. It reasoned that certain constructions were not according to the sanctioned plan and that parts of the land had been sold to third parties, making the original allotment "impracticable".
- Procedural Posture: The Executing Court's order of modification and a subsequent review order were challenged by the appellant via a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Executing Court's power to vary the decree. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India.
- Issue: Whether an Executing Court has the jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to modify or vary the terms of a compromise decree on grounds of "impracticability" or changed circumstances.
- Holding: No, the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree or vary its terms.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Section 47 of the CPC, the power of the Executing Court is limited to questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. It is a settled principle that an Executing Court must take the decree as it stands and cannot assume the role of a trial court to substitute its own view. The only exception is when a decree is a nullity due to a lack of inherent jurisdiction, which was not the case here. The Court clarified that while an Executing Court can resolve disputes regarding the "identity" of the property, it cannot change the allotted portions of land clearly described in a decree simply because the exchange appears "impracticable". Consequently, the modifications made by the lower court were deemed unsustainable in law.
🔒 For Members Only