Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1307
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 281-282 OF 2015
KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1.
The present Appeals arise from a long-standing and deeply rooted
dispute between two sections of Kuruba community in Anantapur District of
Andhra Pradesh i.e., the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta village and the
Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli village. The controversy, extending over
several decades, centers upon the performance of religious rituals and the
custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the deity Lord Sangalappa
Swamy, who is the common deity worshipped by both the sects.
2. The litigation traces back nearly a century. The first in the series of
suits was O.S. No.486 of 1927 filed before the District Munsif Court,
Signature Not Verified
Anantapur by members of the Kamatam (respondents herein) sect of
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.11.11
17:30:19 IST
Reason:
Yerrayapalli, seeking custody of pooja articles and religious paraphernalia
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 1 of 11
relating to Lord Sangalappa Swamy, which included items such as bronze
horses, idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, and other articles of worship.
Although these articles were of negligible material value, they carried
immense sentimental and religious significance for the community.
3. On the other hand, the Kapadam (appellants herein) sect of
Gungulakunta village resisted the claim. The suit, O.S. No. 486 of 1927, was
dismissed, and an appeal, A.S. No. 114 of 1928 preferred before the District
Judge, Anantapur, met with the same fate. While dismissing the appeal, the
learned District Judge observed that a fresh suit could be filed in a
1
representative capacity under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
for the proper management of the endowment, suggesting that such a
proceeding would be appropriate to regulate the administration of the temple.
4. Acting upon those observations, the respondents family instituted O.S.
No. 1 of 1931 before the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, in a
representative capacity. The matter was subsequently transferred to the
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, where it was renumbered as O.S.
No. 15 of 1933. The said suit sought to establish the rights of the respective
sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja , and the custody
of the idols and paraphernalia.
5. During the pendency of O.S. No. 15 of 1933, parties arrived at a
compromise, which was recorded by the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur.
1
For short ‘CPC’
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 2 of 11
Under Clause (1) of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933, it was recorded
that the appellants had been performing pooja to the deity till that date and
meeting the associated expenses. It was agreed that the respondents would
pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards their half-share of the pooja expenses. If
the respondents failed to pay, they will lose their right to perform pooja .
6. Under Clause (2), the compromise further provided that both the groups
would appoint two trustees each to supervise the performance of pooja and
other religious activities and to maintain accounts. The decree further
stipulated that the idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy should be installed
alternately for six months each at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta village, and
that the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three
months in sequence.
7. The 1933 compromise decree was expected to bring an end to the long-
standing feud between the two villages. However, decades later, the dispute
re-emerged. The appellants alleged that in 1999, the respondents refused to
rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the 1933
decree. Consequently, the appellants family filed Execution Petition No. 59 of
2000 in O.S. No.15 of 1933 before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Anantapur, seeking execution of the compromise decree dated
01.11.1933 passed in O.S. No. 15 of 1933.
8. The respondents, arrayed as judgment-debtors in Execution Petition
No. 59 of 2000, filed a counter and subsequently sought to amend the same
by filing E.A. No. 686 of 2001. Upon dismissal of that application, they
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 3 of 11
preferred C.R.P. No. 2777 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The High Court allowed that revision, permitting amendment of the counter
and remitting the matter to the Executing Court with a specific direction to
frame and decide a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the execution
petition.
9. In compliance with those directions, the Executing Court framed a
preliminary issue on the maintainability and, by order dated 14.10.2003, held
that the execution petition was maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the
respondents preferred C.R.P. No. 6055 of 2003. The said revision was
dismissed by the High Court on 12.04.2005, holding that the execution
petition was maintainable under Section 9 of CPC and that Section 42 of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987, did not oust the jurisdiction of the Executing Court.
However, the High Court left open the questions of limitation and locus standi
of the decree-holders to execute the decree, directing the Executing Court to
decide those issues.
10. Upon remand, the Executing Court on 13.09.2005 eventually allowed
E.P. No. 59 of 2000 by directing the respondents to return the idols and pooja
articles to the appellants within one month, failing which a warrant under
Order XXI Rule 31 CPC was to be issued for seizure of the said items.
11. Aggrieved by the said execution order, the respondents filed Civil
Revision Petition No. 5224 of 2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 4 of 11
The High Court initially referred the matter to the Lok Adalat , Anantapur
District Unit, for amicable settlement, but the attempt failed.
12. During adjudication, multiple issues were raised before the High Court,
including (i) the maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the CPC,
(ii) whether the execution petition was barred by limitation, (iii) whether the
appellants had locus standi to execute the decree, and (iv) whether the decree
was executable on facts.
13. Vide judgment dated 06.01.2012, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
allowed the revision preferred by the respondents, holding that though the
appellants had locus standi and the execution petition (E.P. No. 59 of 2000)
was not barred by limitation, the execution petition could not be sustained on
facts, as there was no proof presented by the appellants that the respondents
had violated the terms of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. A review
preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2012 was also dismissed on
28.01.2013.
14. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before us assailing the
judgment(s) passed by the High Court which had set aside the execution of
the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933.
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
15. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued
that the High Court has erred in interfering with the finding of fact returned
by the Executing Court.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 5 of 11
16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal has submitted that the High Court was not correct
in inferring that the appellants have failed to establish breach of the
compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 on the part of respondents. He has
vehemently argued that the deity items were sacred and it is impossible to
believe that the respondents made replica of those idols and were worshipping
the same.
17. Furthermore, Shri Gaurav Agrawal has pointed out that had the
appellants themselves were in possession of the idols, there was no point for
them filing an execution petition at the first place.
18. Per contra, Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, argued that even if the execution petition filed by the appellants
is maintainable and within limitation, the execution petition in itself lacked
factual foundation as there was no evidence to show that they were in
possession of the idols or pooja articles described in the execution schedule,
nor was there any proof that they had violated the terms of the compromise
decree.
19. Shri Gagan Gupta further submitted that under the terms of the
compromise decree, the appellants had been performing the pooja and were
to continue doing so, while the respondents could claim participation only
upon paying Rs. 2,000/- towards their share of the expenses. Since the
respondents had not fulfilled that condition and there had been no exchange
of idols between the parties since the date of compromise decree till present,
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 6 of 11
it was contended that there never existed any enforceable obligation upon the
respondents.
20. Lastly, Shri Gagan Gupta argued that the compromise decree was never
acted upon and over the time, both the parties have set up their own idols
and neither of them have looked the other side to receive the idols for a period
of six months in a year as was stated in the compromise decree. Therefore,
according to the respondents, the High Court was right in setting aside the
order of the Executing Court and ruling against the appellants.
ANALYSIS
21. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the material on record.
22. Considering that the respondents have not filed any appeal against the
decision of the High Court holding the execution petition filed by the
appellants as maintainable, the only short question that falls for our
consideration is whether the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 was
capable of execution on the facts and whether the respondents had in fact
violated its terms as alleged by the appellants.
23. At the outset, we must point out that the parties in E.P. No. 59 of 2000
before the Executing Court were not parties to the original suit of 1933.
Before the Executing Court, the appellants had examined Kapadam
Sangalappa (appellant no. 1 herein as PW-1) and the respondents had
examined Kamatam Narayana (respondent no. 3 herein (now deceased) as
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 7 of 11
RW-1) to support their respective cases. The Executing Court had, however,
accepted the version of the appellants and had ordered the delivery of idols
from the respondents.
24. On scrutiny of the judgment passed by the Executing Court, we find
that there was no convincing evidence before the Executing Court to establish
that the respondents were in possession of the idols or had violated the
compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. The Executing Court appears to have
assumed that, since no quarrel was raised for several decades, the
arrangement must have been in operation and that the respondents must,
therefore, be in possession. Such inference, based merely on the absence of
earlier dispute, is impermissible. Findings based on presumption cannot
replace proof. A bare perusal of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment passed
by the Executing Court would show that the testimony of PW-1 and RW-1
were merely consisting of bare assertions, unsupported by any independent
witnesses or documentary proof. Moreover, none of these witnesses were
party to the original suit of 1933.
25. It is undisputed that the compromise decree between the parties was
entered on 01.11.1933. A perusal of Clause (1) of the compromise decree
would indicate that the appellants themselves were performing pooja and
meeting the expenses in 1933. A presumption, therefore, follows that
possession of the idols then was with the appellants. Learned senior counsel
for the respondents has contended that the compromise decree was never
acted upon and there has never been any exchange of idols between the
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 8 of 11
parties after the compromise decree came into force. To bolster his
submission, he further points out that the condition of payment of Rs.2,000/-
(towards pooja expenses) prescribed under Clause (1) of the decree has also
not been proved to be followed by the respondents.
26. It is a trite law that in execution petition, the primary onus lies on the
decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the
conditions of the decree. However, to the contrary, in the present case, no
evidence has been led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols
ever passed to the respondents. PW-1 examined by the appellants has made
no reference of Rs.2,000/- being paid by the respondents to appellants for
continuous operation of the compromise decree. It is significant to notice that
PW-1, in his cross-examination, admits that there were no accounts with
regard to the income of the temple and, likewise, there was no sharing of
income derived from time to time. He also admits that they got prepared the
horse face, silver padigalu , silver umbrella to the deity with the income
available and they used to spend the income for the repair of the ornaments
of the deity and, in the past 60 years, they have purchased two or three silver
padigalu , four or five silver umbrellas to the deity. Although, this witness
says that these ornaments purchased after the compromise are now available
with the respondents/judgment-debtors. However, in the further cross-
examination, he again admits that due to wear and tear of the articles, they
used to get them repaired and prepared afresh from time to time besides
purchase of new ones and, therefore, he cannot say which of the articles were
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 9 of 11
in existence, out of the above, on the date of compromise. He could not
mention the details of the articles that were prepared subsequent to the
compromise, although, from his own admission, he was the pujari of the
temple. Thus, the case of the respondents/judgment-debtors that the
compromise was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the
appellants/decree-holders upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs.2,000/-
to the appellants, appears highly probable. The non-payment of Rs.2,000/-
by the respondents/judgment debtors is clearly proved from the admission of
PW-1 where he admits that he is not aware of the payment of Rs.2,000/- to
his ancestors, if any.
27. Pertinent is also the fact that there has been no evidence of compliance
of Clause (2) of the compromise decree, which required appointment of two
trustees from each sect to supervise and manage rituals and maintain
accounts. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else. We find that no
material has been produced by the appellants to show that any trustees were
ever appointed or that accounts were maintained. The High Court was right
in observing that had the scheme of appointment of trustees been
implemented, such a dispute between the parties might not have arisen.
28. In this regard, having reviewed the entire material on record, we are of
the view that the appellants had failed to establish violation of the compromise
decree by the respondents. The burden of proving violation of the decree rests
squarely on the decree-holders. In the absence of cogent proof of such
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 10 of 11
violation, the execution cannot be sustained. The burden of proof, which lay
upon the appellants, had not been discharged. The Executing Court fell into
an error in allowing the execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933
on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside
the Executing Court’s order.
29. Consequently, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgments passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Appeals are
dismissed.
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
………………………………………J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 11, 2025.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 11 of 11
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 281-282 OF 2015
KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
KAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1.
The present Appeals arise from a long-standing and deeply rooted
dispute between two sections of Kuruba community in Anantapur District of
Andhra Pradesh i.e., the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta village and the
Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli village. The controversy, extending over
several decades, centers upon the performance of religious rituals and the
custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the deity Lord Sangalappa
Swamy, who is the common deity worshipped by both the sects.
2. The litigation traces back nearly a century. The first in the series of
suits was O.S. No.486 of 1927 filed before the District Munsif Court,
Signature Not Verified
Anantapur by members of the Kamatam (respondents herein) sect of
Digitally signed by
SAPNA BISHT
Date: 2025.11.11
17:30:19 IST
Reason:
Yerrayapalli, seeking custody of pooja articles and religious paraphernalia
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 1 of 11
relating to Lord Sangalappa Swamy, which included items such as bronze
horses, idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, and other articles of worship.
Although these articles were of negligible material value, they carried
immense sentimental and religious significance for the community.
3. On the other hand, the Kapadam (appellants herein) sect of
Gungulakunta village resisted the claim. The suit, O.S. No. 486 of 1927, was
dismissed, and an appeal, A.S. No. 114 of 1928 preferred before the District
Judge, Anantapur, met with the same fate. While dismissing the appeal, the
learned District Judge observed that a fresh suit could be filed in a
1
representative capacity under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
for the proper management of the endowment, suggesting that such a
proceeding would be appropriate to regulate the administration of the temple.
4. Acting upon those observations, the respondents family instituted O.S.
No. 1 of 1931 before the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, in a
representative capacity. The matter was subsequently transferred to the
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, where it was renumbered as O.S.
No. 15 of 1933. The said suit sought to establish the rights of the respective
sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja , and the custody
of the idols and paraphernalia.
5. During the pendency of O.S. No. 15 of 1933, parties arrived at a
compromise, which was recorded by the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur.
1
For short ‘CPC’
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 2 of 11
Under Clause (1) of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933, it was recorded
that the appellants had been performing pooja to the deity till that date and
meeting the associated expenses. It was agreed that the respondents would
pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards their half-share of the pooja expenses. If
the respondents failed to pay, they will lose their right to perform pooja .
6. Under Clause (2), the compromise further provided that both the groups
would appoint two trustees each to supervise the performance of pooja and
other religious activities and to maintain accounts. The decree further
stipulated that the idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy should be installed
alternately for six months each at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta village, and
that the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three
months in sequence.
7. The 1933 compromise decree was expected to bring an end to the long-
standing feud between the two villages. However, decades later, the dispute
re-emerged. The appellants alleged that in 1999, the respondents refused to
rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the 1933
decree. Consequently, the appellants family filed Execution Petition No. 59 of
2000 in O.S. No.15 of 1933 before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Anantapur, seeking execution of the compromise decree dated
01.11.1933 passed in O.S. No. 15 of 1933.
8. The respondents, arrayed as judgment-debtors in Execution Petition
No. 59 of 2000, filed a counter and subsequently sought to amend the same
by filing E.A. No. 686 of 2001. Upon dismissal of that application, they
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 3 of 11
preferred C.R.P. No. 2777 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The High Court allowed that revision, permitting amendment of the counter
and remitting the matter to the Executing Court with a specific direction to
frame and decide a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the execution
petition.
9. In compliance with those directions, the Executing Court framed a
preliminary issue on the maintainability and, by order dated 14.10.2003, held
that the execution petition was maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, the
respondents preferred C.R.P. No. 6055 of 2003. The said revision was
dismissed by the High Court on 12.04.2005, holding that the execution
petition was maintainable under Section 9 of CPC and that Section 42 of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987, did not oust the jurisdiction of the Executing Court.
However, the High Court left open the questions of limitation and locus standi
of the decree-holders to execute the decree, directing the Executing Court to
decide those issues.
10. Upon remand, the Executing Court on 13.09.2005 eventually allowed
E.P. No. 59 of 2000 by directing the respondents to return the idols and pooja
articles to the appellants within one month, failing which a warrant under
Order XXI Rule 31 CPC was to be issued for seizure of the said items.
11. Aggrieved by the said execution order, the respondents filed Civil
Revision Petition No. 5224 of 2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 4 of 11
The High Court initially referred the matter to the Lok Adalat , Anantapur
District Unit, for amicable settlement, but the attempt failed.
12. During adjudication, multiple issues were raised before the High Court,
including (i) the maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the CPC,
(ii) whether the execution petition was barred by limitation, (iii) whether the
appellants had locus standi to execute the decree, and (iv) whether the decree
was executable on facts.
13. Vide judgment dated 06.01.2012, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
allowed the revision preferred by the respondents, holding that though the
appellants had locus standi and the execution petition (E.P. No. 59 of 2000)
was not barred by limitation, the execution petition could not be sustained on
facts, as there was no proof presented by the appellants that the respondents
had violated the terms of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. A review
preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2012 was also dismissed on
28.01.2013.
14. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before us assailing the
judgment(s) passed by the High Court which had set aside the execution of
the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933.
SUBMISSION OF PARTIES
15. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued
that the High Court has erred in interfering with the finding of fact returned
by the Executing Court.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 5 of 11
16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal has submitted that the High Court was not correct
in inferring that the appellants have failed to establish breach of the
compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 on the part of respondents. He has
vehemently argued that the deity items were sacred and it is impossible to
believe that the respondents made replica of those idols and were worshipping
the same.
17. Furthermore, Shri Gaurav Agrawal has pointed out that had the
appellants themselves were in possession of the idols, there was no point for
them filing an execution petition at the first place.
18. Per contra, Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel for the
respondents, argued that even if the execution petition filed by the appellants
is maintainable and within limitation, the execution petition in itself lacked
factual foundation as there was no evidence to show that they were in
possession of the idols or pooja articles described in the execution schedule,
nor was there any proof that they had violated the terms of the compromise
decree.
19. Shri Gagan Gupta further submitted that under the terms of the
compromise decree, the appellants had been performing the pooja and were
to continue doing so, while the respondents could claim participation only
upon paying Rs. 2,000/- towards their share of the expenses. Since the
respondents had not fulfilled that condition and there had been no exchange
of idols between the parties since the date of compromise decree till present,
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 6 of 11
it was contended that there never existed any enforceable obligation upon the
respondents.
20. Lastly, Shri Gagan Gupta argued that the compromise decree was never
acted upon and over the time, both the parties have set up their own idols
and neither of them have looked the other side to receive the idols for a period
of six months in a year as was stated in the compromise decree. Therefore,
according to the respondents, the High Court was right in setting aside the
order of the Executing Court and ruling against the appellants.
ANALYSIS
21. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and have
carefully perused the material on record.
22. Considering that the respondents have not filed any appeal against the
decision of the High Court holding the execution petition filed by the
appellants as maintainable, the only short question that falls for our
consideration is whether the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 was
capable of execution on the facts and whether the respondents had in fact
violated its terms as alleged by the appellants.
23. At the outset, we must point out that the parties in E.P. No. 59 of 2000
before the Executing Court were not parties to the original suit of 1933.
Before the Executing Court, the appellants had examined Kapadam
Sangalappa (appellant no. 1 herein as PW-1) and the respondents had
examined Kamatam Narayana (respondent no. 3 herein (now deceased) as
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 7 of 11
RW-1) to support their respective cases. The Executing Court had, however,
accepted the version of the appellants and had ordered the delivery of idols
from the respondents.
24. On scrutiny of the judgment passed by the Executing Court, we find
that there was no convincing evidence before the Executing Court to establish
that the respondents were in possession of the idols or had violated the
compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. The Executing Court appears to have
assumed that, since no quarrel was raised for several decades, the
arrangement must have been in operation and that the respondents must,
therefore, be in possession. Such inference, based merely on the absence of
earlier dispute, is impermissible. Findings based on presumption cannot
replace proof. A bare perusal of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment passed
by the Executing Court would show that the testimony of PW-1 and RW-1
were merely consisting of bare assertions, unsupported by any independent
witnesses or documentary proof. Moreover, none of these witnesses were
party to the original suit of 1933.
25. It is undisputed that the compromise decree between the parties was
entered on 01.11.1933. A perusal of Clause (1) of the compromise decree
would indicate that the appellants themselves were performing pooja and
meeting the expenses in 1933. A presumption, therefore, follows that
possession of the idols then was with the appellants. Learned senior counsel
for the respondents has contended that the compromise decree was never
acted upon and there has never been any exchange of idols between the
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 8 of 11
parties after the compromise decree came into force. To bolster his
submission, he further points out that the condition of payment of Rs.2,000/-
(towards pooja expenses) prescribed under Clause (1) of the decree has also
not been proved to be followed by the respondents.
26. It is a trite law that in execution petition, the primary onus lies on the
decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the
conditions of the decree. However, to the contrary, in the present case, no
evidence has been led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols
ever passed to the respondents. PW-1 examined by the appellants has made
no reference of Rs.2,000/- being paid by the respondents to appellants for
continuous operation of the compromise decree. It is significant to notice that
PW-1, in his cross-examination, admits that there were no accounts with
regard to the income of the temple and, likewise, there was no sharing of
income derived from time to time. He also admits that they got prepared the
horse face, silver padigalu , silver umbrella to the deity with the income
available and they used to spend the income for the repair of the ornaments
of the deity and, in the past 60 years, they have purchased two or three silver
padigalu , four or five silver umbrellas to the deity. Although, this witness
says that these ornaments purchased after the compromise are now available
with the respondents/judgment-debtors. However, in the further cross-
examination, he again admits that due to wear and tear of the articles, they
used to get them repaired and prepared afresh from time to time besides
purchase of new ones and, therefore, he cannot say which of the articles were
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 9 of 11
in existence, out of the above, on the date of compromise. He could not
mention the details of the articles that were prepared subsequent to the
compromise, although, from his own admission, he was the pujari of the
temple. Thus, the case of the respondents/judgment-debtors that the
compromise was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the
appellants/decree-holders upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs.2,000/-
to the appellants, appears highly probable. The non-payment of Rs.2,000/-
by the respondents/judgment debtors is clearly proved from the admission of
PW-1 where he admits that he is not aware of the payment of Rs.2,000/- to
his ancestors, if any.
27. Pertinent is also the fact that there has been no evidence of compliance
of Clause (2) of the compromise decree, which required appointment of two
trustees from each sect to supervise and manage rituals and maintain
accounts. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else. We find that no
material has been produced by the appellants to show that any trustees were
ever appointed or that accounts were maintained. The High Court was right
in observing that had the scheme of appointment of trustees been
implemented, such a dispute between the parties might not have arisen.
28. In this regard, having reviewed the entire material on record, we are of
the view that the appellants had failed to establish violation of the compromise
decree by the respondents. The burden of proving violation of the decree rests
squarely on the decree-holders. In the absence of cogent proof of such
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 10 of 11
violation, the execution cannot be sustained. The burden of proof, which lay
upon the appellants, had not been discharged. The Executing Court fell into
an error in allowing the execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933
on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside
the Executing Court’s order.
29. Consequently, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgments passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Appeals are
dismissed.
………………………………………J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
………………………………………J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 11, 2025.
Civil Appeal Nos.281-282 of 2015 Page 11 of 11