[2025] 11 S.C.R. 540 : 2025 INSC 1307

Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v.

Kamatam Sangalappa and Others

(Civil Appeal No(s). 281-282 of 2015)

11 November 2025

[Prashant Kumar Mishra* and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Matter pertains to the execution of the compromise decree passed in a dispute as regards performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the common deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy, worshipped by the two sects, the appellants and the respondents; and whether the respondents had in fact violated its terms as alleged by the appellants.

Headnotes†

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution of the compromise decree - Temple dispute between two sections of Kuruba community, Kapadam families-appellant and Kamatam families-respondent - Dispute as regards performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with their common deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy - Suit filed by the respondent family seeking establishment of the rights of the respective sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja, and the custody of the idols and paraphernalia - Compromise decree passed whereby respondents to pay Rs 2000/- , half share of pooja expenses, and idol of the Lord to be installed alternately for six months each at their villages, and the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three months - Decades later, the appellants alleged that the respondents refused to rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the compromise decree - Appellants filed execution petition seeking execution of the compromise decree - Petition allowed directing the respondents to return the idols and pooja articles to the appellants - However, the High Court held that the execution petition could not be sustained as there was

* Author


no proof presented by the appellants that the respondents had violated the terms of the compromise decree - Review thereagainst also dismissed - Interference with:

Held: Not called for - 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, however, no evidence led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols ever passed to the respondents - Case of the respondents/judgmentdebtors that the compromise was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the appellants/decree-holders upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs.2,000/- to the appellants, appears highly probable - Non-payment of Rs.2,000/- by the respondents/ judgment debtors clearly proved from the admission of PW-1 - No evidence of compliance of the clause of the compromise decree, requiring appointment of two trustees from each sect to supervise and manage rituals and maintain accounts - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else - Appellants failed to establish violation of the compromise decree by the respondents - 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 - Burden of proof, which lay upon the appellants, had not been discharged - Executing Court erred in allowing the execution of the compromise decree on mere presumption without any proof and the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court's order - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. [Paras 24-29]

List of Acts

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.

List of Keywords

Compromise decree; Performance of religious rituals; Custody of idols; Paraphernalia associated with the common deity; Lord Sangalappa Swamy; Sects-Kapadam families and Kamatam families; Execution of the compromise decree; Temple dispute; Establishment of the rights of the respective sects over the religious endowment; Execution petition; Presumption; Burden of proof.

542


Case Arising From

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 281-282 of 2015

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2012 and 28.01.2013 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CRP No. 5224 of 2005, and CRPMP No. 2854 of 2012, respectively.

Appearances for Parties

Advs. for the Appellants: Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar.

Advs. for the Respondents: Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Ms. Tatini Basu, Ms. Obulapuram Keerthi.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

The present Appeals arise from a long-standing and deeply rooted dispute between two sections of Kuruba community in Anantapur District of Andhra Pradesh i.e., the Kapadam families of Gungulakunta village and the Kamatam families of Yerrayapalli village. The controversy, extending over several decades, centers upon the performance of religious rituals and the custody of idols and paraphernalia associated with the deity Lord Sangalappa Swamy, who is the common deity worshipped by both the sects.

The litigation traces back nearly a century. The first in the series of suits was O.S. No.486 of 1927 filed before the District Munsif Court, Anantapur by members of the Kamatam (respondents herein) sect of Yerrayapalli, seeking custody of pooja articles and religious paraphernalia relating to Lord Sangalappa Swamy, which included items such as bronze horses, idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy, and other articles of worship. Although these articles were of negligible material value, they carried immense sentimental and religious significance for the community.

On the other hand, the Kapadam (appellants herein) sect of Gungulakunta village resisted the claim. The suit, O.S. No. 486 of


1927, was dismissed, and an appeal, A.S. No. 114 of 1928 preferred before the District Judge, Anantapur, met with the same fate. While dismissing the appeal, the learned District Judge observed that a fresh suit could be filed in a representative capacity under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 for the proper management of the endowment, suggesting that such a proceeding would be appropriate to regulate the administration of the temple.

Acting upon those observations, the respondents family instituted O.S.

No. 1 of 1931 before the Court of the District Judge, Anantapur, in a representative capacity. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur, where it was renumbered as O.S. No. 15 of 1933. The said suit sought to establish the rights of the respective sects over the religious endowment, the performance of pooja, and the custody of the idols and paraphernalia.

During the pendency of O.S. No. 15 of 1933, parties arrived at a compromise, which was recorded by the Subordinate Judge, Anantapur. Under Clause (1) of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933, it was recorded that the appellants had been performing pooja to the deity till that date and meeting the associated expenses.

It was agreed that the respondents would pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards their half-share of the pooja expenses. If the respondents failed to pay, they will lose their right to perform pooja.

Under Clause (2), the compromise further provided that both the groups would appoint two trustees each to supervise the performance of pooja and other religious activities and to maintain accounts. The decree further stipulated that the idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy should be installed alternately for six months each at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta village, and that the performance of pooja would rotate between the two sects every three months in sequence.

The 1933 compromise decree was expected to bring an end to the long-standing feud between the two villages. However, decades later, the dispute re-emerged. The appellants alleged that in 1999, the respondents refused to rotate the idols and paraphernalia as required by the terms of the 1933 decree. Consequently, the appellants family filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000 in O.S. No.15 of 1933 before

1 For short 'CPC'

544


the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, seeking execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 passed in O.S. No. 15 of 1933.

The respondents, arrayed as judgment-debtors in Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000, filed a counter and subsequently sought to amend the same by filing E.A. No. 686 of 2001. Upon dismissal of that application, they preferred C.R.P. No. 2777 of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed that revision, permitting amendment of the counter and remitting the matter to the Executing Court with a specific direction to frame and decide a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the execution petition.

In compliance with those directions, the Executing Court framed a preliminary issue on the maintainability and, by order dated 14.10.2003, held that the execution petition was maintainable.

Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred C.R.P. No. 6055 of 2003. The said revision was dismissed by the High Court on 12.04.2005, holding that the execution petition was maintainable under Section 9 of CPC and that Section 42 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, did not oust the jurisdiction of the Executing Court. However, the High Court left open the questions of limitation and locus standi of the decree-holders to execute the decree, directing the Executing Court to decide those issues.

10. Upon remand, the Executing Court on 13.09.2005 eventually allowed E.P. No. 59 of 2000 by directing the respondents to return the idols and pooja articles to the appellants within one month, failing which a warrant under Order XXI Rule 31 CPC was to be issued for seizure of the said items.

11. Aggrieved by the said execution order, the respondents filed Civil Revision Petition No. 5224 of 2005 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court initially referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, Anantapur District Unit, for amicable settlement, but the attempt failed.

12. During adjudication, multiple issues were raised before the High Court, including (i) the maintainability of the revision under Section 115 of the CPC, (ii) whether the execution petition was barred by limitation, (iii) whether the appellants had locus standi to execute the decree, and (iv) whether the decree was executable on facts.


13. Vide judgment dated 06.01.2012, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the revision preferred by the respondents, holding that though the appellants had locus standi and the execution petition (E.P.

No. 59 of 2000) was not barred by limitation, the execution petition could not be sustained on facts, as there was no proof presented by the appellants that the respondents had violated the terms of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933. A review preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2012 was also dismissed on 28.01.2013.

14. Being aggrieved, the appellants are now before us assailing the judgment(s) passed by the High Court which had set aside the execution of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933.

SUBMISSION OF PARTIES

15. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the appellants, argued that the High Court has erred in interfering with the finding of fact returned by the Executing Court.

16. Shri Gaurav Agrawal has submitted that the High Court was not correct in inferring that the appellants have failed to establish breach of the compromise decree dated 01.11.1933 on the part of respondents.

He has vehemently argued that the deity items were sacred and it is impossible to believe that the respondents made replica of those idols and were worshipping the same.

17. Furthermore, Shri Gaurav Agrawal has pointed out that had the appellants themselves were in possession of the idols, there was no point for them filing an execution petition at the first place.

18. Per contra, Shri Gagan Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents, argued that even if the execution petition filed by the appellants is maintainable and within limitation, the execution petition in itself lacked factual foundation as there was no evidence to show that they were in possession of the idols or pooja articles described in the execution schedule, nor was there any proof that they had violated the terms of the compromise decree.

19. Shri Gagan Gupta further submitted that under the terms of the compromise decree, the appellants had been performing the pooja and were to continue doing so, while the respondents could claim participation only upon paying Rs. 2,000/- towards their share of the expenses. Since the respondents had not fulfilled that condition and

546


there had been no exchange of idols between the parties since the date of compromise decree till present, it was contended that there never existed any enforceable obligation upon the respondents.

20. Lastly, Shri Gagan Gupta argued that the compromise decree was never acted upon and over the time, both the parties have set up their own idols and neither of them have looked the other side to receive the idols for a period of six months in a year as was stated in the compromise decree. Therefore, according to the respondents, the High Court was right in setting aside the order of the Executing Court and ruling against the appellants.

ANALYSIS

21. We have heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record.

22. Considering that the respondents have not filed any appeal against the decision of the High Court holding the execution petition filed by the appellants as maintainable, 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.

23. At the outset, we must point out that the parties in E.P. No. 59 of 2000 before the Executing Court were not parties to the original suit of 1933. Before the Executing Court, the appellants had examined Kapadam Sangalappa (appellant no. 1 herein as PW-1) and the respondents had examined Kamatam Narayana (respondent no. 3 herein (now deceased) as RW-1) to support their respective cases.

The Executing Court had, however, accepted the version of the appellants and had ordered the delivery of idols from the respondents.

24. On scrutiny of the judgment passed by the Executing Court, we find 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 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.

A bare perusal of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment passed by


the Executing Court would show that the testimony of PW-1 and RW-1 were merely consisting of bare assertions, unsupported by any independent witnesses or documentary proof. Moreover, none of these witnesses were party to the original suit of 1933.

25. It is undisputed that the compromise decree between the parties was entered on 01.11.1933. A perusal of Clause (1) of the compromise decree would indicate that the appellants themselves were performing pooja and meeting the expenses in 1933. A presumption, therefore, follows that possession of the idols then was with the appellants.

Learned senior counsel for the respondents has contended that the compromise decree was never acted upon and there has never been any exchange of idols between the parties after the compromise decree came into force. To bolster his submission, he further points out that the condition of payment of Rs.2,000/- (towards pooja expenses) prescribed under Clause (1) of the decree has also not been proved to be followed by the respondents.

26. 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. However, to the contrary, in the present case, no evidence has been led by the appellants to show that possession of the idols ever passed to the respondents.

PW-1 examined by the appellants has made no reference of Rs.2,000/- being paid by the respondents to appellants for continuous operation of the compromise decree. It is significant to notice that PW-1, in his cross-examination, admits that there were no accounts with regard to the income of the temple and, likewise, there was no sharing of income derived from time to time. He also admits that they got prepared the horse face, silver padigalu, silver umbrella to the deity with the income available and they used to spend the income for the repair of the ornaments of the deity and, in the past 60 years, they have purchased two or three silver padigalu, four or five silver umbrellas to the deity. Although, this witness says that these ornaments purchased after the compromise are now available with the respondents/judgment-debtors. However, in the further cross-examination, he again admits that due to wear and tear of the articles, they used to get them repaired and prepared afresh from time to time besides purchase of new ones and, therefore, he cannot say which of the articles were in existence, out of the above, on the date of compromise. He could not mention the details of the articles that were prepared subsequent to the compromise, although, from

548


his own admission, he was the pujari of the temple. Thus, the case of the respondents/judgment-debtors that the compromise was never acted upon and the articles always remained with the appellants/ decree-holders upon failure of the respondents to pay Rs.2,000/- to the appellants, appears highly probable. The non-payment of Rs.2,000/- by the respondents/judgment debtors is clearly proved from the admission of PW-1 where he admits that he is not aware of the payment of Rs.2,000/- to his ancestors, if any.

27. Pertinent is also the fact 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. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else. We find that no material has been produced by the appellants to show that any trustees were ever appointed or that accounts were maintained. The High Court was right in observing that had the scheme of appointment of trustees been implemented, such a dispute between the parties might not have arisen.

28. In this regard, having reviewed the entire material on record, 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. 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.

29. Consequently, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Appeals are dismissed.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain