Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the appeals concerning a decades-old dispute between two sections of the Kuruba community in Andhra Pradesh over the custody and rotation of idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. The Court held that the 1933 compromise decree between the parties could not be enforced in execution proceedings without proof of its breach. Observing that a decree cannot be executed merely on presumption, the Bench clarified that the burden lies on the decree-holder to establish that the judgment debtor has violated the decree’s terms. Finding no evidence of such violation, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision setting aside the Executing Court’s order.

The case originated from a prolonged dispute between two sections of the Kuruba community in Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh — the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta village and the Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli village — regarding the performance of religious rituals and custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with Lord Sangalappa Swamy. The disagreement dates back to 1927 when members of the Kamatam sect filed a suit seeking possession of pooja articles, which was dismissed. Acting on judicial advice, a representative suit was later filed in 1931, culminating in a compromise decree in 1933. Under the decree, both sects were to alternate the performance of pooja and share custody of the idols every few months.

Also Read: Decree That Is ‘Nullity’ Can Be Challenged Even During Execution; Supreme Court Quashes Bombay High Court Order Refusing Execution Of Trial Decree

Decades later, in 1999, the Kapadam sect alleged that the Kamatam sect had violated the terms of the 1933 decree and sought its execution. The respondents opposed the execution petition, contending that it lacked maintainability and factual basis. Issues arose concerning limitation, locus standi, and compliance under Sections 9 and 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Evidence primarily consisted of oral testimonies from both parties, without corroborative documents or independent witnesses.

The Supreme Court observed that “the only short question that falls for our consideration is whether the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 was capable of execution on the facts and whether the respondents had in fact violated its terms as alleged by the appellants.”

It recorded that there was “no convincing evidence before the Executing Court to establish that the respondents were in possession of the idols or had violated the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933.” The Court said, “the Executing Court appears to have assumed that, since no quarrel was raised for several decades, the arrangement must have been in operation and that the respondents must, therefore, be in possession. Such inference, based merely on the absence of earlier dispute, is impermissible. Findings based on presumption cannot replace proof.”

The Bench further observed that “it is a trite law that in execution petition, the primary onus lies on the decree-holder to show that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the conditions of the decree.” It noted that “no evidence has been led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols ever passed to the respondents.”

The Court stated that “the compromise decree was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the appellants upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the appellants.” It added that “there has been no evidence of compliance of Clause (2) of the compromise decree, which required appointment of two trustees from each sect to supervise and manage rituals and maintain accounts.”

Concluding, the Bench recorded that “the appellants had failed to establish violation of the compromise decree by the respondents. The burden of proof, which lay upon the appellants, had not been discharged.”

Also Read: Patna High Court Dismisses RJD MLA's Bail Plea To Campaign In Bihar Polls; Election Canvassing Not A Fundamental Right And Stresses Need To Keep Criminal Elements Out Of Politics

The Court observed that “we are of the view that the appellants had failed to establish violation of the compromise decree by the respondents. The burden of proving violation of the decree rests squarely on the decree-holders. In the absence of cogent proof of such violation, the execution cannot be sustained. The burden of proof, which lay upon the appellants, had not been discharged.”

It further stated that “the Executing Court fell into an error in allowing the execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court’s order.”

“Accordingly the Appeals are dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi, Adv.

Case Title: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1307
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 281–282 of 2015
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi