Supreme Court Upholds High Court Ruling That Execution of 1933 Compromise Decree Requires Cogent Proof

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi heard appeals by members of one section of the Kuruba community challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s setting aside of an executing court order that directed return of idols and pooja articles under a compromise decree of 1 November 1933. The appeals arose from long‑running inter‑sect disputes over custody, rotation and performance of rituals in respect of the deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy.

The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s conclusion that the executing court had erred in ordering delivery of the articles on the basis of presumption rather than proof. The bench held that the decree‑holders bore the primary onus to establish that the judgment‑debtors had willfully violated the terms of the compromise decree and that no cogent evidence was placed on record to discharge that burden. The Court noted that “findings based on presumption cannot replace proof.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background: The dispute dated back to suits beginning in 1927 between two Kuruba sects — the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta and the Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli — over custody of bronze horses, idols and other articles associated with Lord Sangalappa Swamy. After initial litigation, parties recorded a compromise on 1 November 1933 providing (inter alia) that the idols be installed alternately for six months at each village and that pooja performance would rotate every three months; the respondents were to pay Rs.2,000 as their half‑share of expenses, failing which they would lose the right to perform pooja. Clause (2) required appointment of two trustees from each group to supervise rituals and accounts.

Decades later the appellants filed Execution Petition No.59 of 2000 alleging non‑compliance by respondents. The executing court accepted the appellants’ version and ordered return of the idols. The respondents challenged that order before the High Court which, after referral to Lok Adalat and remand proceedings, allowed their revision in a judgment dated 6 January 2012. The High Court held that although the execution petition was maintainable and within limitation, the appellants had not proved breach of the 1933 compromise; the review was dismissed on 28 January 2013. The Supreme Court noted that no appeal was pressed against the High Court’s finding on maintainability and confined its review to whether the compromise decree was executable on the facts and whether respondents had violated its terms.

On the facts, the Supreme Court recorded that the executing court relied on inference rather than independent or documentary evidence: witnesses were not parties to the original 1933 suit; PW‑1 (the appellants’ own witness and former pujari) admitted absence of accounts, inability to identify which articles existed at the date of compromise, and lack of proof of payment of Rs.2,000 by respondents. The Court observed there was also no evidence that trustees were appointed or accounts maintained as required by Clause (2). In view of these factual deficiencies, the Court found that the appellants had not discharged the burden of proof and that the High Court rightly set aside the execution order. The appeals were dismissed.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1307 (Civil Appeal Nos. 281‑282 of 2015) Case Title: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Gagan Gupta, Senior Counsel