A decree cannot be selectively executed when the decree-holder has breached interdependent settlement obligations.

The executor of the Will of late Vrajlal Shamjibhai Raval instituted proceedings for probate, which were converted into Civil Suit No. 823 of 2002 after being contested by the legal heirs.

During the suit, the parties entered into a family arrangement, and the City Civil Court passed a compromise decree on 27 January 2009.

The arrangement contemplated: distribution of bank deposits among the parties, sale and distribution of proceeds of company shares, and sale and distribution of proceeds of a bungalow situated at 5/B, Hindu Colony, Opp. Sardar Patel Stadium, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

The appellant, an original defendant, filed Execution Petition No. 26 of 2012 seeking enforcement of the decree and appointment of a Court Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, principally for sale of the bungalow.

During execution proceedings, he endorsed on 21 February 2026 that he was not pressing the claims concerning the bank deposits and company shares and was pursuing only the relief relating to the bungalow.

The respondents contended that the appellant had sold Hindustan Lever Ltd. shares for Rs.1,06,70,951.57 but had not distributed the proceeds as required by the family arrangement.

The appellant did not dispute the sale, though he alleged that the respondents had also sold shares without distributing the proceeds.

The Executing Court dismissed the execution petition on 6 May 2026, holding that the decree could not be executed selectively.

Whether the appellant could seek execution of only the bungalow-related component of the compromise decree while expressly not pressing the components concerning company shares and bank deposits.

Whether a party who had obtained financial benefit under the family arrangement but had not accounted for or distributed the proceeds could obtain equitable relief in execution proceedings.

Whether the Executing Court erred in refusing appointment of a Court Receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC for enforcement of the compromise decree.

The Court applied Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the court to appoint a receiver where such appointment is just and convenient for preservation, management, or realization of property.

It also applied the principle that a compromise decree embodying interdependent terms of a family arrangement cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be selectively enforced by a party seeking only its own advantage while declining to perform or pursue the corresponding obligations under the decree.

Further, the equitable principle that a litigant seeking discretionary or equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands was applied; a party that has derived benefits under the arrangement but has failed to account for or distribute them may be denied such relief.

The Court found that the compromise decree dealt with three connected components—bank deposits, company shares, and the bungalow—and required distribution of the benefits among the parties.

The appellant expressly abandoned execution of the first two components and pressed only for sale of the bungalow.

At the same time, he admitted that Hindustan Lever Ltd. shares had been sold, although he had not distributed the sale proceeds in accordance with the decree.

The Court held that the appellant could not invoke the decree selectively to secure the sale of the bungalow while retaining or failing to account for benefits obtained under another component of the same family arrangement.

This conduct was inconsistent with the clean-hands doctrine and disentitled him to the discretionary relief of appointment of a receiver.

Accordingly, the Executing Court’s refusal to proceed with partial execution was held not to suffer from legal error.

It held that, in the circumstances, the compromise decree could not be executed only in respect of the bungalow when the appellant had chosen not to pursue the other components and had himself failed to distribute proceeds received from the sale of shares.

The appeal was dismissed, the order dated 6 May 2026 of the City Civil Court dismissing Execution Petition No. 26 of 2012 was upheld, and no order as to costs was made.

Any pending application was also disposed of.