Technical property details may be supplied via affidavit to assess stamp duty and complete partition decrees.

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

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

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, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in 2009

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench on April 3, 2019, held that while the decree could not be modified under Section 152, the Department could add "short recitals" from pleadings and materials on record to complete the decree so that parties could enjoy its fruits

Defendant No. 1 filed the current application and a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026, providing the technical details of the properties to enable the Collector’s assessment

Respondents opposed the application, arguing the doctrine of merger and that the request was a disguised attempt to reopen issues already settled by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the provision of technical property details for stamp duty assessment constitutes an impermissible modification of a decree previously finalized by the Supreme Court

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or the rejection of a Section 152 CPC application prevents the Court from directing the Collector to assess stamp duty based on supplementary technical data

Section 152 of the CPC, which governs the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

Rule 11, Chapter XVI of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which permits the Registrar to include short recitals in a decree as necessary

Doctrine of Merger as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

The court addressed the finality of litigation as discussed in State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey & Ors.

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

It noted that the coordinate Bench's order of April 3, 2019, which achieved finality, expressly authorized the Department to collect particulars from the pleadings and materials on record to finalize the decree

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" properties but were technical descriptions of properties already included in the Mittal Settlement

Therefore, providing these details to the Collector does not amount to an "improvement" or alteration of the decree’s substance but is a procedural necessity to satisfy the Collector’s requirements (Form No. 1) for valuation

The Court concluded that the doctrine of merger was inapplicable because the objective was the execution and enjoyment of the fruits of the decree, which a party cannot be left remediless to pursue

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

The Court specifically held that providing such details for assessment does not violate previous orders against decree modification

All prayers for a stay of this order were rejected