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

A consent decree was passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on the "Mittal Settlement" regarding property allotment

Although the parties recognized the properties, the decree lacked technical descriptions (e.g., title deed details), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess stamp duty for registration on November 28, 2025

Defendant No. 1 filed an application (GA/5/2023) to facilitate the completion of the decree, providing technical details in a supplementary affidavit dated February 10, 2026

Previous applications by Defendant No. 1 under Section 152 of the CPC to alter the decree were dismissed by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009

However, a coordinate Bench order dated April 3, 2019, had previously directed the department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from pleadings and materials on record to ensure the parties could enjoy the "fruits of the decree"

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification of the 1997 consent decree after the rejection of prior Section 152 CPC applications

2. Whether the doctrine of merger or principles of res judicata bar the current relief sought for the drawing up, completion, and registration of the decree

The court considered Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes

It evaluated the doctrine of merger established in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 359

The court also noted the principle from Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Jessop and Co. Ltd. Staff Association & Ors. (2003) 4 CompLJ 333 (Cal) that a case cannot be improved through a supplementary affidavit

Order XX Rule 6 of the CPC and Chapter 16 Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules of the High Court were applied regarding the requirements for the "contents of decree" and the department’s duty to draw up decrees following judgment

The Court held that the current application was distinct from the previously rejected Section 152 CPC petitions. While Section 152 was not the appropriate vehicle for adding property descriptions, the Court emphasized that a party cannot be left "remediless" regarding a valid judgment

Relying on the unchallenged judgment of April 3, 2019, the Court affirmed that the department has the authority to add short recitals to a decree using particulars from existing pleadings and materials

The Court found that the technical details in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" improvements but were derived from historical pleadings; thus, their inclusion was necessary for the Collector to assess stamp duty

The doctrine of merger was deemed inapplicable because the current prayer sought the completion and registration of the decree to give it effect, rather than a substantive modification of the 1997 judgment

It directed the parties to file the requisite Form No. 1 (as requested by the Collector) fresh within a fortnight from the date of the order, incorporating the necessary technical details

The Collector was ordered to assess the stamp duty payable and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks of receiving the form

The Court rejected the prayers for a stay of this order made by the appellant and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3