Supreme Court Holds 1933 Compromise Decree Not Executable Without Proof of Violation—Burden Lies on Decree-Holder

Case Name: Kapadam Sangalappa & Ors. v. Kamatam Sangalappa & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 281–282 of 2015; 2025 INSC 1307
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that the 1933 compromise decree governing rotation of idols, pooja rights, and appointment of trustees could not be executed because the decree-holders failed to prove any violation by the judgment-debtors. The Court ruled that execution cannot be granted on presumptions about possession or breach; the burden lies squarely on the decree-holder to establish non-compliance through cogent evidence. The Executing Court erred in assuming breach merely because decades had passed without dispute, and the High Court rightly set aside the execution order.

Summary: The case concerns a nearly century-long dispute between two Kuruba community sects—Kapadam families of Gungulakunta and Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli—over rituals, idol custody, and temple administration of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. After early litigation in the 1920s, the parties entered into a compromise decree in 1933 requiring alternate installation of idols, rotation of pooja every three months, and payment of ₹2,000 by respondents toward expenses. Decades later, the Kapadam group filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000 alleging breach of the decree. The respondents denied possession of the idols and argued that the compromise was never acted upon because they never paid the ₹2,000 and both sides eventually created separate idols. The Executing Court ordered delivery of idols, but the High Court overturned that decision, finding no evidence of violation. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined witness testimonies, noting contradictions and lack of documentary proof, including absence of records showing trustee appointments or proof of payment or transfer of idols. The Court emphasized that the compromise decree presumed possession with the appellants in 1933, and no evidence showed transfer thereafter. It held that without proof of breach, no right to execution arises.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s judgment, holding that the 1933 compromise decree was not executable on the facts because the decree-holders had not discharged their burden of proving any violation by the respondents. The Court found that the Executing Court relied on impermissible presumptions regarding possession of idols and compliance with ritual rotation, and that the High Court correctly concluded that the compromise decree was never acted upon and lacked enforceable factual foundation. Consequently, the execution proceedings were rightly set aside, and no interference was warranted under Article 136.