Enforcement of sale-conditioned vacancy under a compromise decree requires examination of evidence of a prospective buyer.

In brief

The question

Whether the delivery warrant should stand when the compromise decree made the petitioner’s obligation to vacate conditional on the parties deciding to dispose of the property, but evidence of a prospective sale had not been placed on record

The court held

The petition was disposed of with directions that the respondents place documents evidencing a prospective buyer on record within four weeks, and that the Executing Court examine those documents and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond.

It also directed

The Court did not finally decide whether the petitioner must vacate; that question was left for the Executing Court to address on the evidence.

01Facts

The petitioner, a judgment debtor, challenged an order dated 22 October 2024 of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, directing issuance of a delivery warrant for vacant possession of the relevant portion of Item No. 3 of the final-decree property

¶ 1, 4 · pp. 3–5

The underlying partition suit was decreed by a preliminary decree in 2008, followed by a compromise final decree dated 27 May 2023.

¶ 3 · p. 4

Under paragraph 3 of the compromise, the petitioner could reside in a portion of Item No. 3 until 31 May 2023, and was required to vacate if the parties decided to dispose of the property.

¶ 5 · p. 5

The petitioner argued that, at over 90 years of age, he had nowhere else to go; the decree holders asserted that his failure to vacate had impeded a proposed sale.

¶ 2–3 · pp. 3–4

The High Court noted that no sale agreement or other evidence of a prospective sale had then been produced, although counsel for the respondents stated that a prospective buyer existed.

¶ 6–7 · p. 7

02Issues

i.Whether the delivery warrant should stand when the compromise decree made the petitioner’s obligation to vacate conditional on the parties deciding to dispose of the property, but evidence of a prospective sale had not been placed on record

¶ 5–6 · p. 5, 7

ii.Whether the respondents should be directed to produce evidence of a prospective buyer, for examination by the Executing Court after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond

¶ 7–9 · pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court considered the supervisory jurisdiction invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the terms of paragraph 3 of the compromise decree.

¶ 5–6 · p. 5, 7

Under that term, the petitioner was to vacate the relevant property if the parties decided to dispose of it.

¶ 5 · p. 5

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

04Reasoning

The compromise decree linked the petitioner’s obligation to vacate to a decision to dispose of Item No. 3.

¶ 5 · p. 5

Because the respondents had not produced an agreement to sell or other evidence supporting that condition, the Court did not treat the asserted prospective sale as established.

¶ 6 · p. 7

Rather than finally determine the enforceability of the delivery warrant, the Court directed the respondents to file evidence of a prospective buyer and left its assessment, and any consequential order, to the Executing Court after hearing the petitioner.

¶ 7–9 · pp. 7–8