Executing Court lacks jurisdiction to modify a decree’s terms or go behind its tenor for practical convenience.

The appellant and respondent were embroiled in a dispute over 51R of land in Plot No. 396(A), Panchgani, Maharashtra

On July 14, 2017, a compromise decree was drawn based on an agreement dated July 8, 2017

The decree partitioned the land, allotting 10R as common land and dividing the remaining 41R equally (20.5R each) with specific descriptions of the portions and structures falling into each party's share

During execution proceedings (Execution Petition No. 21 of 2018), the Executing Court, via orders dated July 19, 2021, and August 26, 2021, modified the specific areas allotted to the parties

The modifications were based on "practicality," citing that certain constructions were not per sanctioned maps and that the appellant had sold part of the land to a third party

The High Court upheld these orders on April 21, 2022, leading to this appeal

Whether an Executing Court possesses the jurisdiction to modify or vary the terms of a compromise decree on the grounds of practicality or subsequent changes in circumstances.

Whether the Executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure by re-allotting land portions differently from the original decree.

The court primarily applied Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits the Executing Court’s power to determining questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree

It relied on the principle established in Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, stating that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and must take it according to its tenor

Furthermore, it applied Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, which holds that an Executing Court can only entertain objections regarding the validity of a decree if it is a nullity due to lack of inherent jurisdiction

The court also clarified the application of Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan, noting that while Executing Courts ensure reciprocal obligations are met, they cannot vary the decree's terms

The Supreme Court observed that the jurisdiction of an Executing Court is strictly limited to giving effect to the decree as passed; it cannot assume the role of a trial court to substitute its own views

In the present case, the compromise decree clearly identified and described the land portions allotted to each party

The Court reasoned that factors such as the "practicability" of exchange, non-conformance of constructions to sanctioned maps, or the sale of portions to third parties are "immaterial" in execution

Since the identity of the land was not in dispute, the Executing Court’s duty was to ensure compliance with the decree’s original terms

By altering the land portions allotted to the parties, the Executing Court went beyond its jurisdiction and effectively modified the decree, which is legally unsustainable

The Court held that an Executing Court cannot vary the terms of a decree except where it is a nullity

It directed the Executing Court to execute the decree strictly in accordance with its original terms and tenor