Technical property details from pleadings may be used for stamp duty assessment to finalize a decree.

The litigation stems from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" involving property partition

While the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., plot details, title deed references), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess the stamp duty necessary for registering the decree

Previously, Defendant No. 1’s application to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that such omissions did not constitute clerical or arithmetical errors

However, a subsequent coordinate bench order dated April 3, 2019—which remained unchallenged—directed the Department to draw up the decree and permitted the inclusion of "short recitals" by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record

Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit providing technical details and title deeds to enable the Collector’s valuation

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of the decree, previously barred by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation bars the court from considering these technical details for the purpose of stamp duty assessment

The Court considered Section 152 of the CPC, 1908, which restricts the amendment of judgments or decrees to clerical or arithmetical mistakes

It evaluated 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 upon adjudication

The court also referenced Chapter XVI Rule 11 of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules and Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment and allow for necessary recitals

Additionally, the principle from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey regarding the finality of rejected prayers was assessed

The Court distinguished between the "alteration" of a decree (which was rejected under Section 152) and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree (which is a procedural mandate)

It reasoned that the earlier rejections by the High Court and Supreme Court were limited to the scope of Section 152 and did not render the parties remediless or prevent them from enjoying the fruits of the decree

The court highlighted that the 2019 order specifically empowered the Department to incorporate particulars from the record

Regarding the supplementary affidavit, the court found that the technical details provided were not "new" improvements or alterations but were consistent with existing pleadings and necessary for the statutory task of stamp duty assessment by the Collector

Consequently, the doctrine of merger was held inapplicable because the current prayer for completion and registration is distinct from the earlier prayer for modification under Section 152

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1, containing 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 of receipt

All prayers for a stay of this order by the opposing parties were rejected