A party cannot defeat execution of a settlement through unsupported claims or unilateral alteration.

The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 30 November 2015 concerning division of property bearing Nos. B-2 and B-3, Main Market, Gokapuri, Delhi.

Under the Agreement, the basement was to be divided equally, with one portion allotted to the Respondent/Decree Holder and the remaining portion to be divided between the Appellant’s daughters.

The Appellant subsequently alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) had declared the entire basement illegal and dangerous and that, with the Respondent’s consent, he filled and closed the basement with malba and other material in 2019.

In Execution Petition No. 202/2023, the Appellant raised objections seeking to resist enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

The learned Executing Court dismissed those objections by order dated 29 May 2026, holding that the Appellant had produced no material proving either the MCD’s alleged declaration or the Respondent’s consent.

The Appellant challenged that order under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC.

1. Whether the Appellant could resist execution of the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the basement had allegedly been declared illegal and dangerous by the MCD, when no supporting order, notice, or document had been produced.

2. Whether the alleged consent of the Respondent, or any arrangement between the Appellant and his daughters, could defeat or modify the Respondent’s crystallised rights under the Settlement Agreement.

3. Whether the Executing Court had committed any error of law, perversity, or material irregularity in dismissing the Appellant’s objections.

The Court applied Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing objections in execution proceedings.

It reiterated that an executing court must enforce the decree or settlement according to its terms and cannot travel beyond or substantially alter them.

A party cannot rely on its own unilateral act or wrong to defeat an accrued right of the decree-holder; filling or closing the basement could not render the Settlement Agreement unenforceable without proof that the Respondent had agreed to such alteration.

Alleged consent or subsequent arrangements must be established through cogent and reliable material, and an intra-family arrangement between the Appellant and his daughters could not prejudice rights arising from an agreement to which the Respondent was a party.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the Appellant’s challenge rested entirely on two unsupported assertions: that the MCD had declared the basement illegal and dangerous, and that the Respondent had consented to its closure and filling.

The Settlement Agreement was undisputed and had crystallised the Respondent’s right to a specified share in the basement.

Since the Appellant produced no MCD notice, order, demolition direction, communication, or other documentary evidence, the plea of impossibility or alteration arising from MCD action was unsubstantiated.

Likewise, no evidence established the Respondent’s consent.

The Respondent’s continued pursuit of his rights under the Settlement Agreement was inconsistent with the alleged consent.

The Appellant therefore could not rely on his own act of filling the basement, or on any alleged consent given by his daughters, to defeat the Respondent’s independent contractual and execution rights.

It held that the Appellant failed to substantiate either the alleged MCD declaration or the Respondent’s consent, and could not unilaterally defeat the Settlement Agreement dated 30 November 2015.

The appeal was dismissed, the impugned order dated 29 May 2026 was upheld, and all pending applications were disposed of.

The Court clarified that its judgment would not affect any independent right or remedy otherwise available to either party in law.