Technical property particulars for stamp duty assessment are procedural supplements, not impermissible modifications of a final decree.

On May 22, 1997, a Division Bench passed a consent decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation of the "Mittal Settlement"

While the settlement allotted properties among parties, it lacked technical descriptions and title deed details

Consequently, the Collector reported on November 28, 2025, that stamp duty could not be assessed for the registration of the decree due to insufficient particulars

Defendant No. 1 previously sought to alter the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2009, as the request did not meet the criteria for correcting clerical or arithmetical errors

However, a subsequent Division Bench order dated April 3, 2019, held that a party cannot be left remediless and directed the department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and records

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

1. Whether the doctrine of merger and previous rejections of applications under Section 152 CPC bar the court from considering technical property details provided in a supplementary affidavit for the purpose of drawing up and completing the decree

2. Whether the inclusion of technical details in a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible "improvement" or modification of the original consent decree

3. Whether the Collector can be directed to assess stamp duty based on particulars provided in a supplementary affidavit that were already part of the record or pleadings

Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC, which govern the inherent powers of the court and the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter 16, Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court, which mandate that a decree must agree with the judgment and allow for short recitals to be added by the Registrar/Master

The court distinguished the Doctrine of Merger as established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala, ruling it inapplicable when the legal grounds for a new application differ from those previously adjudicated

The principle that a party cannot be left remediless to enjoy the fruits of a decree, as established in the inter-party judgment dated April 3, 2019

The Court reasoned that the current application by Defendant No. 1 is not for the "alteration" of the decree under Section 152, which had been previously rejected, but for the "drawing up and completion" of the existing decree

The Court observed that while the 1997 consent decree lacked technical particulars, these details were essentially present in the underlying title deeds and pleadings

Relying on the 2019 coordinate bench decision, the Court held that the department is empowered to add short recitals by collecting particulars from the records

The Court rejected the Respondents’ arguments regarding the doctrine of merger, noting that the previous 1999/2009 litigation only determined that the requested changes did not fall under Section 152, whereas the current focus is on administrative completion for stamp duty assessment

The Court found that the supplementary affidavit did not "improve" the case but merely disclosed existing technical data required by the Collector

The Court directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1, containing the technical details, with the Collector within a fortnight. The Collector is directed to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks.

All prayers for stay made by the Appellants and certain Respondents were rejected