The question of who bears the burden of proof in execution proceedings often arises when disputes concern the enforcement of decrees passed decades earlier. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Kapadam Sangalappa & Ors. v. Kamatam Sangalappa & Ors. (2025 INSC 1307), has once again clarified this fundamental procedural issue: the onus in execution proceedings lies primarily upon the decree-holder to establish that the judgment debtor has willfully violated or disobeyed the terms of the decree.
This judgment gains significance not only because it settles a century-old temple dispute between two families in Andhra Pradesh but also because it provides authoritative guidance on the principles of evidence, maintainability, and executability of decrees. Through this ruling, the Supreme Court reinforced the idea that execution cannot rest on presumptions or inferences—it must be supported by cogent proof that the decree has been breached.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated between two sects of the Kuruba community in Anantapur district, Andhra Pradesh—the Kapadam family of Gungulakunta village and the Kamatam family of Yerrayapalli village. Both claimed custodial rights over the idols and religious paraphernalia associated with Lord Sangalappa Swamy, their common deity.
The earliest litigation dates back to 1927, when members of the Kamatam family filed O.S. No. 486 of 1927 before the District Munsif Court, Anantapur, seeking custody of sacred items such as idols and bronze horses. The suit and subsequent appeals were dismissed, though the appellate court suggested that a fresh suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) could be filed to regulate the endowment.
Acting on that suggestion, a representative suit was filed in 1931, registered as O.S. No. 15 of 1933, where both families agreed to a compromise decree on 1 November 1933. This decree became the central point of controversy for the next nine decades.
The 1933 Compromise Decree
Under the 1933 compromise decree:
- The Kapadam family (appellants) acknowledged that they had been performing the pooja and meeting expenses till that date.
- The Kamatam family (respondents) agreed to contribute ₹2,000 as their half-share of expenses. Failure to pay would result in the loss of their right to perform pooja.
- The idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy were to be alternately installed at Yerrayapalli and Gungulakunta every six months, and pooja was to rotate every three months.
- Two trustees from each sect were to be appointed to supervise rituals and maintain accounts.
Though intended to ensure religious harmony, this compromise instead became the foundation of recurring disputes.
Events Leading to the Execution Petition
Decades later, in 1999, the Kapadam family alleged that the Kamatam family refused to rotate the idols as per the decree. Consequently, they filed Execution Petition No. 59 of 2000 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, seeking enforcement of the 1933 decree.
The respondents contested maintainability and limitation, arguing that the decree was never acted upon and that both families had long-established separate idols and shrines. After several rounds of litigation, the Andhra Pradesh High Court initially upheld the maintainability of the execution petition. Still, it directed the executing court to determine factual issues such as locus standi, limitation, and proof of violation.
The Executing Court, by order dated 13 September 2005, allowed the petition and ordered the respondents to return the idols and pooja articles, failing which coercive action under Order XXI Rule 31 CPC was to follow. The respondents challenged this order before the High Court.
High Court’s Decision
On 6 January 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the respondents’ revision petition. The Court held:
- The execution petition was within the limitation and maintainable.
- The decree-holders had locus standi to seek execution.
- However, the execution was unsustainable on the facts, as the decree-holders failed to prove any violation by the respondents.
The High Court emphasised that no evidence was presented to show that the respondents were in possession of the idols or had breached the terms of the 1933 compromise decree. The Court concluded that execution cannot be based on presumption or inference.
Appeal before the Supreme Court
The decree-holders (Kapadam family) appealed before the Supreme Court, arguing that:
- The High Court erred in reversing the Executing Court’s finding.
- The idols were sacred and irreplaceable; the respondents’ possession was implicit.
- If the appellants already had possession, there would have been no reason to file an execution petition.
The respondents countered by asserting that:
- They never violated the decree.
- The compromise decree had never been acted upon, as they had not paid ₹2,000, and no rotation of idols ever occurred.
- Both sects independently worshipped their own idols for decades.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The central issue was:
- Who bears the burden of proof in execution proceedings?
- Is it upon the decree-holder to prove that the judgment debtor violated the decree, or upon the judgment debtor to prove compliance?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. Scope of Inquiry in Execution Proceedings
The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of an executing court is confined to enforcing the decree as it stands. It cannot go behind the decree, nor can it enforce a decree that has become inoperative due to lapse of time or failure of conditions precedent.
Here, the Court noted that neither sides in the execution petition were the original parties to the 1933 suit. Therefore, the evidentiary threshold was higher: the decree-holder had to prove continuity of obligation and breach by the judgment debtor.
2. Absence of Convincing Evidence
The Court examined the evidence led by both parties:
- The appellants’ witness (PW-1) merely offered assertions that the respondents possessed the idols but produced no independent or documentary evidence.
- He admitted ignorance about the ₹2,000 payment and conceded that accounts were never maintained.
- He further admitted that new ornaments were made over the years, blurring the distinction between original and newly created religious items.
Given these contradictions, the Court found no credible evidence that possession of idols ever passed to the respondents.
3. Principle of Burden of Proof
At the heart of the judgment lies paragraph 26, where the Supreme Court categorically stated:
“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.”
The Court observed that the decree-holder must not rely on presumption or inference. Proof of violation must be direct, clear, and credible. The judgment debtor’s liability arises only when the decree-holder first discharges this burden.
4. Doctrine of Special Knowledge (Section 106, Evidence Act)
The Court referred to the evidentiary principle that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden lies on him to prove it. Since the appellants were claiming a violation of the decree, the responsibility to prove it rested with them. They failed to show:
- Any exchange of idols after 1933.
- Payment of ₹2,000 as required by the decree.
- Appointment of trustees or maintenance of accounts.
Thus, the decree-holders did not meet their evidentiary burden.
5. Execution Cannot Rest on Presumption
The Court censured the Executing Court’s reliance on the presumption that “since there was no quarrel for decades, the arrangement must have been followed.” It held such reasoning to be impermissible and legally unsustainable. Findings in execution must be based on proof, not inference.
This aligns with earlier precedents such as Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman (1970) 1 SCC 670, which limits an executing court’s power to presume facts not supported by the record.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Court concluded that:
- The burden of proving violation of the decree lay on the decree-holders.
- They failed to produce cogent evidence of non-compliance by the respondents.
- The High Court was correct in setting aside the Executing Court’s order.
- Execution cannot be sustained merely because of the passage of time or the absence of objection from the judgment debtors.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal, affirming that execution based on presumption or absence of denial is contrary to law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kapadam Sangalappa v. Kamatam Sangalappa provides a definitive answer to the long-standing question:
The burden of proof in execution proceedings lies squarely on the decree-holder, not the judgment debtor.
Unless the decree-holder produces concrete proof that the judgment debtor has willfully disobeyed the decree, the execution cannot succeed. Courts must resist the temptation to infer non-compliance from silence, delay, or sentiment. This principle safeguards both procedural fairness and judicial discipline, ensuring that the execution process remains a means of justice, not presumption.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams