Kashmir Singh Since Deceased Through His Lrs And Another vs Gurbachan Kaur And Others

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026


Kashmir Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Gurbachan Kaur and others ...Respondents

Reserved on: 28.10.2026

Pronounced on: 30.10.2026
Pronounced fully/operative part: Fully

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Argued by: Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate (Through VC)
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the respondents.


DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The petitioners, being the legal representatives of deceased
judgment-debtor No.2 Kashmir Singh, have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order
dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur,
in Execution Petition No.EXE-230 of 2025, whereby warrants for sale of the
property inherited by them from deceased Kashmir Singh have been ordered to
be issued for recovery of the outstanding decretal amount, notwithstanding an
earlier compromise between the parties and payment made pursuant thereto.
2. Briefly stated, respondent No.1-plaintiff, Gurbachan Kaur, had
instituted a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 13 kanal 12 marla,
situated in village Dugri, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, against Virsa Singh,
Kashmir Singh and Gurmej Singh. The suit was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 05.02.2007 (Annexure R-2), which attained finality after the
defendants unsuccessfully pursued their remedies before the higher Courts.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 1 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
Ultimately, possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff through
the process of Court on 29.12.2020.
3. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.1370 of 2021 for
recovery of mesne profits on account of unauthorized occupation of the
property by the defendants. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and
decree dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-1) , directing the legal representatives of
the original defendants to pay ₹9,38,791 as mesne profits along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum and costs.
4. The legal representatives of deceased defendant No.2 Kashmir
Singh, challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree by preferring an appeal.
Meanwhile, the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings bearing No.EXE-
18 of 2023. During the pendency of those proceedings, a compromise was
arrived at between the decree-holder and the legal representatives of Kashmir
Singh, pursuant to which the latter paid ₹3,66,150 towards the decretal amount.
5. On 20.08.2024, Rajinder Singh, one of the legal representatives of
Kashmir Singh, made a statement before the Executing Court acknowledging
payment of ₹3,66,150 in cash to the decree-holder through his counsel. He also
stated that the original cheque dated 08.07.2024, earlier deposited in Court, had
been returned to him. Learned counsel representing the decree-holder made a
corresponding statement acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid amount and
withdrawing the execution against the legal representatives of Kashmir Singh as
partly satisfied.
6. Acting upon the aforesaid statements, the Executing Court passed
an order dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) recording partial satisfaction of the
execution against the legal representatives of judgment-debtor No.2. The
warrants of sale issued against them were recalled and necessary intimation was
directed to be issued to the revenue authorities.
7. Subsequently, the appeal preferred by the legal representatives of
Kashmir Singh was taken up before the National Lok Adalat. Learned counsel
representing the appellants made a statement that the matter had been
YOGESH MEHTA
compromised between the parties and that the appellants did not wish to
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 2 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
pursue the appeal. Rajinder Singh, one of the appellants, also signed the
statement. Accordingly, the application along with the appeal was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 14.09.2024 on account of the
(Annexure P-6)
compromise.
8. However, the decree-holder subsequently instituted fresh
execution proceedings bearing No.EXE-230 of 2025 for recovery of the
remaining decretal amount. The present petitioners resisted the proceedings
against them on the ground that they had already paid their agreed share of the
decretal liability pursuant to the compromise, whereafter the decree-holder had
withdrawn the earlier execution against them and they, in turn, had withdrawn
their appeal.
9. The learned Executing Court, vide impugned order dated
10.03.2026, rejected the aforesaid objection, observing that payment of
approximately ₹3,65,000 did not discharge the entire decretal liability. It was
further observed that the remaining amount continued to be recoverable from
the judgment-debtors and that the legal representatives of Kashmir Singh, along
with the other judgment-debtors, remained liable for satisfaction of the decree.
Consequently, warrants for sale of the property inherited by the petitioners
from deceased Kashmir Singh were ordered to be issued for recovery of
₹6,25,000 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
10. Upon consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners, this Court issued notice of motion on 07.04.2026 and stayed
operation of the impugned order. The decree-holder has now moved an
application seeking vacation of the interim order, contending, inter alia, that the
petitioners remain liable for the outstanding decretal amount and that certain
properties had earlier been transferred by Kashmir Singh in favour of the other
defendants. The petitioners have contested the application and reiterated that
the decree-holder, having accepted payment pursuant to the compromise,
cannot reopen the settled liability against them.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the decree dated
19.10.2022 does not expressly impose joint and several liability upon the three
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 3 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
sets of defendants. It is submitted that the petitioners paid ₹3,66,150/- towards
their agreed share of the decretal amount, which was duly accepted by the
decree-holder, whereafter the execution against them was withdrawn and the
warrants of sale were recalled. It is further contended that, acting upon the
compromise, the petitioners withdrew their appeal against the decree.
According to learned counsel, the decree-holder cannot, after accepting the
benefit of the settlement, seek to enforce the remaining decretal liability against
the petitioners.
12. Per contra , learned counsel for the decree-holder submits that the
decree was passed against all the defendants and their legal representatives
without any apportionment of liability. The payment made by the petitioners
was expressly recorded as partial satisfaction of the decree and, therefore, did
not extinguish their liability for the outstanding amount. It is further submitted
that withdrawal of the earlier execution proceedings did not preclude the
decree-holder from filing a fresh execution petition for recovery of the
remaining amount. Reliance has also been placed upon the alleged transfers of
property by Kashmir Singh in favour of the other defendants to justify
continuation of the execution proceedings.
Court's Analysis and Findings
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
relevant record, this Court finds that the controversy lies within a narrow
compass. The question requiring determination is whether the decree-holder,
having accepted payment from the legal representatives of judgment-debtor
No.2 pursuant to a compromise and having withdrawn the execution
proceedings against them, can subsequently seek recovery of the remaining
decretal amount from the same judgment-debtors.
14. At the outset, it deserves to be noticed that the judgment and
decree dated 19.10.2022 directed the legal representatives of the three original
defendants to pay ₹9,38,791/- as mesne profits along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum. Significantly, the decree neither expressly declares their liability
to be joint and several nor apportions the decretal amount amongst them.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32 However, the mere absence of an express direction regarding joint and several
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 4 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
liability does not necessarily imply that each set of defendants was liable for only
one-third of the amount. The nature of liability has to be understood from the
decree read with the judgment on which it is founded.
15. In L. Kochivareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder, (1979) 3 SCC 150 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that liability for mesne profits ordinarily
attaches to a person in wrongful possession, although persons acting jointly to
deprive the rightful owner of possession may be held jointly and severally liable.
The Court also recognized that such liability may be apportioned in appropriate
circumstances. Thus, joint and several liability is not an inevitable consequence
merely because a consolidated amount of mesne profits has been awarded
against more than one defendant. The nature of liability must be gathered from
the findings recorded and the terms of the decree.
16. Nevertheless, the controversy in the present petition does not
require this Court to finally determine whether the original liability of the
defendants was joint, several or otherwise. The subsequent compromise
between the decree-holder and the present petitioners has a direct bearing on
the enforceability of the decree against them.
17. The record reveals that during the pendency of Execution Petition
No.EXE-18 of 2023, Rajinder Singh, one of the legal representatives of deceased
Kashmir Singh, made a statement before the Executing Court on 20.08.2024
acknowledging payment of ₹3,66,150 to the decree-holder through his counsel.
The original cheque earlier deposited in Court was also returned to him. Learned
counsel representing the decree-holder made a corresponding statement
acknowledging receipt of the amount and withdrawing execution against the
legal representatives of Kashmir Singh as partly satisfied.
18. On the basis of the aforesaid statements, the Executing Court
recorded partial satisfaction of the decree and recalled the warrants of sale
issued against the legal representatives of Kashmir Singh. The order also
directed that necessary intimation regarding recall of the warrants be issued to
the revenue authorities. Thus, the withdrawal of execution against the
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 5 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
petitioners was not merely an informal understanding between the parties but
was expressly recorded in judicial proceedings.
19. The matter did not end there. The legal representatives of Kashmir
Singh had challenged the decree dated 19.10.2022 by preferring an appeal. On
14.09.2024, the said appeal was taken up before the National Lok Adalat, where
learned counsel representing the appellants made a statement that the matter
had been compromised and that the appellants did not wish to pursue their
appeal. Rajinder Singh, one of the appellants, also signed the statement.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on account of the
compromise.
20. These two proceedings cannot be viewed in isolation. The decree-
holder accepted payment and withdrew execution against the petitioners. The
petitioners, in turn, abandoned their challenge to the decree on the express
ground that the matter had been compromised. The sequence of events
establishes that the parties acted upon the settlement and altered their
respective positions accordingly.
21. Order XXI Rule 2 CPC recognizes payment or adjustment of a
decree, either wholly or in part, to the satisfaction of the decree-holder. In
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 373 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court recognized that a compromise concerning rights and obligations under a
decree, where it extinguishes the decree wholly or partly, constitutes an
adjustment within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 2 CPC. The provisions of
Section 47 CPC, which govern questions relating to execution, discharge and
satisfaction of a decree, are required to be applied consistently with Order XXI
Rule 2 CPC.
22. In the present case, the payment was expressly acknowledged on
behalf of the decree-holder before the Executing Court and the adjustment was
acted upon by passing the order dated 20.08.2024. The objection raised by the
petitioners is, therefore, not founded upon an unrecorded or disputed payment
allegedly made outside the Court. The subsequent withdrawal of the appeal on
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 6 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
account of compromise provides further judicial confirmation that the parties
had arrived at a settlement.
23. It is true that the order dated 20.08.2024 describes the execution as
partly satisfied. However, that expression cannot be interpreted independently
of the identity of the judgment-debtors against whom execution was withdrawn.
The decree was against the legal representatives of three original defendants,
whereas the payment and withdrawal of execution specifically concerned the
legal representatives of Kashmir Singh. The decree could therefore remain partly
unsatisfied as a whole, notwithstanding a settlement of the liability of one set of
judgment-debtors.
24. Section 63 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, recognizes that a
promisee may remit performance of a promise, wholly or in part, or accept such
satisfaction as he considers appropriate. The principle underlying the provision
reinforces the legal permissibility of a creditor accepting an agreed amount in
settlement of a larger liability. The material question is whether such acceptance
was intended as satisfaction of the liability concerned.
25. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the acceptance of
₹3,66,150/-, the express withdrawal of execution against the legal
representatives of Kashmir Singh, the recall of warrants of sale and the
subsequent withdrawal of their appeal on account of compromise, when
considered cumulatively, support the conclusion that the settlement was
intended to conclude the proceedings against the present petitioners. To hold
otherwise, would render the withdrawal of their appeal pursuant to the
compromise substantially, meaningless.
26. The decree-holder cannot be permitted to accept the benefit of the
settlement, allow the petitioners to abandon their appellate remedy on that
basis and thereafter seek to enforce the original decree against them without
regard to the arrangement already acted upon. Such a course would be
inconsistent with the binding effect of the judicially recorded compromise and
the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate in relation to the
same transaction.
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 7 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
27. The contention raised on behalf of the decree-holder that Kashmir
Singh had earlier transferred certain properties in favour of defendants No.1 and
3 does not alter the aforesaid conclusion. The validity or effect of such transfers
may have relevance to the identification of property available for satisfaction of
a subsisting decretal liability. However, the alleged transfers cannot revive a
liability, which has already been adjusted pursuant to a binding settlement. The
decree-holder's remedy, if any, concerning such transfers must be pursued in
accordance with law and cannot furnish an independent justification for
disregarding the compromise.
28. It is also significant that the learned Executing Court, while passing
the impugned order, proceeded substantially on the reasoning that the decretal
amount remained partly unpaid and that all judgment-debtors continued to be
liable. The Court failed to appreciate the distinction between the continued
existence of an unsatisfied decree against the remaining judgment-debtors and
the enforceability of that decree against persons, whose liability had
subsequently been settled.
29. The learned Executing Court was required to give effect to the
judicially recorded arrangement rather than mechanically proceed on the basis
of the original decretal amount. Its failure to do so has resulted in the issuance
of warrants for sale against the petitioners notwithstanding the earlier
compromise and withdrawal of execution against them. The impugned order,
therefore, suffers from a material error in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
30. This Court is conscious that execution proceedings are intended to
secure the fruits of a decree and that the decree-holder cannot be deprived of
recovery of an amount lawfully due. However, the right to execute a decree is
subject to any lawful adjustment or satisfaction subsequently recorded between
the parties. In the present case, the decree-holder remains entitled to pursue
recovery of the outstanding decretal amount against the other judgment-
debtors, to the extent permissible in law. The compromise with the present
petitioners does not, by itself, extinguish the decree against persons who were
YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32 not parties to that settlement.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 8 of total 9 Pages

CM-9980-CII-2026 in/and
CR-3002-2026
Final Order
31. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Gurdaspur, in Execution Petition No.EXE-230 of 2025, insofar as it
directs issuance of warrants for sale of the property inherited by the petitioners
from deceased Kashmir Singh, is hereby set aside.
32. It is held that, in view of the compromise acted upon by the parties
and recorded in the proceedings dated 20.08.2024 and 14.09.2024, the decree
dated 19.10.2022 stands adjusted and satisfied qua the present petitioners,
being the legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor No.2 Kashmir
Singh. Consequently, no further execution for recovery of the remaining decretal
amount shall be maintainable against them on the strength of the said decree.
33. It is, however, clarified that the decree-holder shall remain at liberty
to pursue execution against the legal representatives of the other judgment-
debtors, subject to the terms of the decree and the applicable provisions of law.
No opinion is expressed regarding the liability of such judgment-debtors or the
executability of the decree against their properties.
34. The application moved by the decree-holder for vacation of the
interim order dated 07.04.2026 is accordingly dismissed. All other pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


30.10.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Yogesh JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No


Uploaded on: 30.10.2026



YOGESH MEHTA
2026.10.30 15:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page N: 9 of total 9 Pages