Technical property details may be provided for stamp duty assessment to facilitate completion and registration of a decree.

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

Although the settlement identified the properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., specific title deed details), preventing the Collector from assessing the stamp duty required for registration

In 1999, an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to modify the decree was rejected, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a subsequent Division Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that the decree must be drawn up to ensure parties enjoy its fruits and permitted the Department to add short recitals from the pleadings

Defendant No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit on February 10, 2026, providing technical property details to facilitate the Collector's assessment

Respondents opposed this, citing the doctrine of merger and claiming the affidavit was an impermissible attempt to improve the case

1. Whether the technical details of properties can be provided to the Collector for stamp duty assessment despite the prior rejection of a Section 152 CPC application for modification

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the principle of finality of litigation prevents the court from facilitating the completion of the decree

3. Whether technical details provided via supplementary affidavit constitute a new case or an impermissible improvement

The court primarily applied Order 20 Rule 6 of the CPC and Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree and permit short recitals

It considered Section 152 of the CPC regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes

The court also addressed 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

the principle from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey regarding the finality of rejected reliefs

Lastly, it referred to the principle that a case cannot be improved via supplementary affidavit as discussed in Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association

The court reasoned that the current application is for the "drawing up and completion" of the decree, not a modification of its substance under Section 152 CPC

It distinguished the earlier 1999 rejection, noting that while the decree was not amenable to change under Section 152, the parties cannot be left remediless regarding the registration of the partition

Following the 2019 coordinate Bench order, the court held that the Department is authorized to include technical particulars culled from existing materials on record

The court found that the details in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" but existed within the title deeds and pleadings; thus, they were not an "improvement" but a necessary clarification for the Collector’s statutory valuation

Consequently, the doctrine of merger did not apply because the current relief (completion of the decree) differs from the previously rejected relief (modification under Section 152)

The court directed the parties to file the requisite "Form No. 1" with technical property details before 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 application was listed for further hearing in five weeks, and all prayers for a stay by the Respondents were rejected