Technical property descriptions from records may be used for stamp duty assessment to facilitate completion of a decree.

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement," which partitioned properties among the parties

However, the decree lacked technical descriptions (title deeds/boundaries) of the immovable properties, preventing the Collector from assessing the stamp duty necessary for registration

Previously, Defendant No. 1 sought to modify the decree under Section 152 of the CPC, but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute clerical errors

In 2019, a coordinate Bench ruled that the decree must be drawn up and the Department could add short recitals from the records to ensure parties enjoy the fruits of the decree

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit providing the technical details required by the Collector to assess valuation

Respondents opposed the application, arguing the Doctrine of Merger and res judicata barred any addition to the decree

1. Whether providing technical property details via a supplementary affidavit for stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification of a consent decree previously upheld by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the Doctrine of Merger and the prior rejection of an application under Section 152 of the CPC bar the court from directing the Collector to assess stamp duty based on technical details found in the pleadings

The court considered Section 151 (inherent powers) and Section 152 (correction of clerical/arithmetical errors) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

It applied Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which allows the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree

The court addressed the "Doctrine of Merger" as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, where a lower court's order merges into the superior court's order

It also considered the principle from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey regarding the finality of rejected prayers and Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. concerning the prohibition of improving a case through supplementary affidavits

The Court distinguished between the "alteration" of a decree under Section 152 CPC and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree for registration

It reasoned that the previous rejection by the Supreme Court only applied to corrections under Section 152, but did not render the parties remediless or prevent the execution of the decree

The Court noted that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" but existed within the material records and pleadings of the case

Therefore, these details were not "improvements" to the prayer but necessary administrative data for the Collector to perform a statutory duty

The Court found the Doctrine of Merger inapplicable because the current relief—seeking stamp duty assessment to finalize a decree—did not conflict with the earlier refusal to modify the decree’s substantive terms under Section 152

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1, including the technical details, with the Collector within a fortnight

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

The prayers for a stay made by the Respondents and Appellants were rejected