Supplementing technical property descriptions from existing records for stamp duty assessment does not constitute an impermissible decree modification.

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"

The settlement partitioned properties among the parties, but the decree lacked specific technical descriptions and title deed details of the immovable properties

Consequently, the Collector, in a report dated November 28, 2025, stated an inability to assess the stamp duty required for the registration of the decree due to insufficient particulars

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application seeking the drawing up and completion of the decree, supported by a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, which provided the necessary technical details

Opposing parties argued that a previous application under Section 152 of the CPC to modify the decree had been rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009, and thus the decree could not be altered

However, a coordinate bench in 2019 had already directed the department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and records

1. Whether the technical details of properties provided via supplementary affidavit can be used to assess stamp duty without violating the finality of the 1997 decree

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the previous rejection of an application under Section 152 CPC bars the current relief for completion of the decree

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees

Chapter XVI, Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court and Order XX, Rule 6 of the CPC, which mandate that decrees must be drawn up following a judgment and may contain short recitals necessary for completion

Doctrine of Merger as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Principle of finality of litigation from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey regarding previously rejected reliefs

The Court reasoned that while a previous request to modify the decree under Section 152 CPC was rejected, such rejection did not leave the parties remediless or prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the decree

The Court relied on a 2019 coordinate bench order which held that the department is mandated to draw up the decree and can add short recitals by collecting particulars from existing pleadings and materials

The Bench observed that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence or an "improvement" of the case, but were existing details within the title deeds and pleadings necessary for the Collector’s valuation

The Court distinguished the present application from the 1999 litigation; the earlier case sought to correct the decree for errors, whereas the current application sought the completion and registration of the existing decree

Therefore, the doctrine of merger did not apply as the current relief was distinct from the one previously adjudicated

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the necessary particulars to the Collector within a fortnight

The Collector was directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks

All prayers for a stay of this order by the appellants and other defendants were rejected