The Supreme Court held that the burden of proof in execution proceedings lies squarely on the decree-holder to establish a willful violation of the decree’s terms. Mere assertions without independent evidence are insufficient. The Court found no cogent proof that the judgment-debtor had breached the 1933 compromise decree, and thus declined to execute it.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originates from a long-standing dispute between two factions of the Kuruba community in Andhra Pradesh over the custody of idols and the performance of rituals for their common deity, Lord Sangalappa Swamy. The initial litigation dates back to 1927. The matter culminated in a compromise decree on November 1, 1933, which stipulated that the idols would be rotated every six months between the villages of Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta, and worship duties would alternate every three months. It also required the respondents to pay Rs. 2,000 to claim their share of worship rights.Decades later, in 1999, the appellants alleged the respondents refused to rotate the idols as per the decree. Consequently, they filed an execution petition in 2000. The Executing Court initially ordered the return of the idols, but the High Court later set aside this order, finding no factual proof that the respondents were in possession of the original idols or had violated the 1933 terms. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s finding that they had failed to discharge their burden of proving a breach of the compromise decree.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case is extensive, spanning nearly a century. It began with the original suit (O.S. No. 486 of 1927) before the District Munsif Court, Anantapur, which culminated in a compromise decree on 01.11.1933 in O.S. No. 15 of 1933. The dispute resurfaced in 1999, leading the appellants to file Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000 for enforcing the 1933 decree. The Executing Court allowed the petition in 2005, directing the return of idols. The respondents challenged this in Civil Revision Petition No. 5224 of 2005 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The High Court, in its 2012 judgment, reversed the Executing Court, holding that while the execution petition was maintainable and within limitation, the appellants had failed to provide factual proof of the decree’s violation. The High Court’s subsequent review petition was dismissed in 2013. The appellants then filed the present civil appeals before the Supreme Court, which were ultimately dismissed in 2025, upholding the High Court’s decision.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Directs Statutory Protection for Delhi Ridge to Curb Encroachments
Court Observation:
In its analysis, the Supreme Court made key observations centered on the burden of proof in execution proceedings. The Court emphasized that the onus lies squarely on the decree-holder to establish, through cogent evidence, that the judgment-debtor has willfully disobeyed the decree’s terms. It found that the appellants had failed to discharge this burden, as their evidence consisted merely of bare assertions from witnesses who were not parties to the original 1933 suit, unsupported by any independent or documentary proof. The Court noted the absence of evidence showing that the idols were ever transferred to the respondents, that the mandated trustees were ever appointed, or that accounts were maintained as required by the compromise decree. Critically, it observed that the non-payment of the stipulated Rs. 2,000 by the respondents and the long period of inaction made it highly probable that the 1933 decree was never acted upon, thus creating no enforceable obligation. The Court concluded that findings based on presumption cannot replace legal proof, and it upheld the High Court’s view that there was no factual foundation to execute the century-old decree.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The final decision affirmed that the appellants, as decree-holders, had failed to provide legally admissible and cogent evidence to prove that the respondents had violated the terms of the 1933 compromise decree. The Court concluded that the burden of proving a breach in execution proceedings was not discharged, as the claims rested on presumptions and unsupported assertions rather than concrete proof of possession or willful disobedience. Consequently, the execution order originally granted by the lower court was set aside, and the 1933 decree was held to be not capable of enforcement on the presented facts.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others vs. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others Citation: 2025 INSC 1307 Appeal No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 281-282 of 2015 Date of Judgement: November 11, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi