Technical property details from record may be utilized for stamp duty assessment to facilitate drawing up decrees.

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" for the partition and allotment of properties

However, the settlement lacked specific technical descriptions (boundaries/title details), rendering the Collector unable to assess stamp duty for the decree's registration

Earlier, the 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 the Supreme Court in 2009, on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute clerical errors

In 2019, a coordinate Bench observed that while the decree could not be modified, the Department should collect particulars from the pleadings and materials on record to draw up the decree so parties are not left remediless

The Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit in February 2026 providing technical details and title deeds to facilitate valuation

The Respondents opposed this, citing the doctrine of merger and the finality of the Supreme Court’s 2009 rejection

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification or alteration of the 1997 consent decree in violation of the doctrine of merger

2. Whether the Court can direct the Collector to assess stamp duty based on technical particulars derived from the records to ensure the drawing up and completion of a decades-old decree

The court primarily considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees

It evaluated the Doctrine of Merger as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which posits that a lower court's order merges into the superior court's order upon adjudication

It further referenced the principle from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey, prohibiting the revival of previously rejected prayers

Rule 11, Chapter XVIA of the Calcutta High Court Original Side Rules, which empowers the Department to add short recitals to a decree by collecting particulars from the record

The Court distinguished between the "alteration" of a decree under Section 152 CPC (which was previously rejected) and the "drawing up and completion" of a decree to make it executable

It held that the doctrine of merger did not bar the present application because the 2019 coordinate Bench order—which attained finality—specifically mandated the Department to use available materials to finalize the decree

The Court noted that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were culled from existing title deeds and pleadings already within the knowledge of the parties

Reasoning that a party cannot be left remediless or denied the "fruits of the decree" due to technical omissions in the settlement document, the Court found that the supplementary affidavit did not "improve" the prayer but merely provided the necessary data for the Collector’s assessment

It directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 with the technical details before 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 of receiving the forms

The Court explicitly rejected the stay prayers made by the appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3