Kapadam Sangalappa v. Kamatam Sangalappa; 2025 INSC 1307 - CPC - Execution - Decree Violation
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXI - Execution - 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. (Para 26) - 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. (Para 28) [Context: SC held that Executing Court fell into an error in allowing the execution of the compromise decree on mere presumption without any proof]
Evidence - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and no one else. (Para 27)
Case Info
Key details
- Case name: Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1307.
- Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.
- Judgment date: November 11, 2025.
Statutes / laws referred
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
- Section 92 (representative suits for public trusts/endowments).
- Section 9 (civil court jurisdiction).
- Section 115 (civil revision jurisdiction).
- Order XXI Rule 31 (execution—seizure/attachment in decree for specific movable property).
- Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987:
- Section 42 (jurisdictional aspect noted; held not to oust executing court’s jurisdiction).
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.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/f0a8dr9waF pic.twitter.com/d1NjKx9KgK
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 11, 2025
