Technical property details from records may be utilized for stamp duty assessment to complete a decree.

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

Although the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Department could not complete the decree, and the Collector was unable to assess the stamp duty required for registration

Previously, Defendant No. 1 sought to modify the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but the application was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009

On April 3, 2019, a coordinate Bench directed the Department to complete the decree, observing that parties should not be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing technical property details and title deeds to assist the Collector

Respondents opposed this, arguing the doctrine of merger and that the application sought to impermissibly modify a final decree

1. Whether the court can direct the Collector to assess stamp duty based on technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit when a previous application for decree modification was rejected

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of res judicata prevents the Department from adding technical recitals to complete a decree under the Original Side Rules

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, noting its limitations in altering substantive decree terms

Rule 11, Chapter XVI of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which empowers the Registrar to include necessary short recitals in a decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and the record

Doctrine of Merger as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359

The finality of rejected prayers as discussed in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 73

The Court reasoned that the 1999 rejection of the Section 152 CPC application only determined that the lack of technical details did not constitute a "clerical error" amenable to summary correction

The 2019 coordinate Bench judgment, which remained unchallenged, specifically directed the Department to draw up the decree using available materials

The Court found that the technical details in the 2026 supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were derived from existing title deeds and pleadings already in the record; thus, utilizing them was not an "improvement" of the case but a facilitative step for the Collector

The doctrine of merger was held inapplicable because the current prayer for "completion and registration" of the decree is procedurally distinct from the earlier failed attempt to "alter" the decree’s substance

Parties are directed to file Form No. 1 as required by the Collector within a fortnight

The Collector is directed to assess the stamp duty based on these details and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks

The prayers for stay made by the Appellants and Respondents No. 2 and 3 were rejected