Supreme Court Holds Executing Court Cannot Go Beyond Decree; Sets Aside Modification of Compromise Decree in Execution
Case Name: Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
Citation: 2026 INSC 340
Date of Judgment/Order: 09 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Held: The Supreme Court held that an executing court has no jurisdiction to go beyond or modify the terms of a decree and must execute it strictly as it stands, except in cases where the decree is a nullity, and any alteration of substantive rights under the decree during execution is impermissible in law.
Summary: The case arose from execution of a compromise decree relating to division of land between the parties. The decree clearly demarcated the portions of land to be allotted to each party along with reciprocal obligations, including execution of sale deeds. During execution, the executing court modified the land allocation on grounds of impracticability, unauthorized constructions, and partial alienation of land, and further altered the decree through a review order. The High Court upheld these modifications. Before the Supreme Court, the central issue was whether such alterations were within the scope of Section 47 CPC. The Court examined settled jurisprudence, including Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi and Sunder Dass, and reiterated that the executing court is bound by the decree and cannot assume the role of a trial court to vary its terms. It clarified that while the executing court may resolve disputes relating to identity or implementation of the decree, it cannot alter substantive rights or reallocate property contrary to the decree. The Court found that there was no dispute regarding identity of the property and that the decree was clear and executable as it stood. It held that considerations such as inconvenience, deviation from sanctioned plans, or subsequent sale of part of the property were irrelevant to execution and could not justify modification of the decree.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the executing court dated 19.07.2021 and 26.08.2021 along with consequential directions, and directed that the compromise decree be executed strictly in its original terms and tenor, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.