Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 340
📌 Paras 3-18
The dispute concerns the execution of a compromise decree dated 14.07.2017, arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The parties had entered into a compromise where 10R of land was to remain common, and the remaining 41R was to be divided equally (20.5R each), with areas to be ascertained by a surveyor and property value by a government valuer. The compromise decree incorporated these terms and a sanctioned map. The defendant-respondent filed an execution petition, claiming to be the decree holder. The Executing Court modified the areas allotted to the parties, citing impracticability due to constructions and sale of a portion to a third party. This modification was further altered upon review. The plaintiff-ap
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial