Supreme Court Holds Executing Court Cannot Declare Compromise Decree a Nullity Without Valid Grounds

In Rehan Ahmed (D) through LRs. v. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) through LRs. (2024 Latest Caselaw 262 SC), the Supreme Court held that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to reopen issues that have already attained finality. The Court restored the execution of a compromise decree, observing that the High Court had erroneously declared the decree to be a nullity despite the compromise having been validly entered into and verified in accordance with law. 

The dispute concerned a property in Jaipur, for which the appellant had filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a compromise under which the owner agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant. A compromise decree was passed by the Trial Court in 1979. When the decree-holder initiated execution proceedings, objections were filed under Section 47 CPC. These objections were initially rejected by the Executing Court, and the order attained finality after being upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Subsequently, another legal heir of one of the defendants filed fresh objections under Section 47 CPC, contending that the decree was a nullity and incapable of execution. The High Court accepted these objections and declared the decree inexecutable, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the High Court was justified in declaring the compromise decree a nullity and allowing fresh objections under Section 47 CPC after similar objections had already been rejected and attained finality. 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious error in interfering with the Executing Court's order. The Court observed that: •The property exclusively belonged to Defendant No. 1, who had admitted the agreement to sell and validly entered into the compromise with the plaintiff. •Defendant No. 2 had consistently acknowledged that he had no ownership rights over the property. •The compromise was duly verified by the Trial Court in compliance with Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC before the decree was passed. •The delay in recording the compromise resulted only from procedural adjournments and did not affect its validity. •Similar objections under Section 47 CPC had already been rejected in earlier proceedings, and those orders had attained finality after dismissal of challenges before both the High Court and the Supreme Court. •Fresh objections by another legal heir raising identical issues amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that the High Court had proceeded on incorrect assumptions regarding ownership of the property and the validity of the compromise decree. 

The Supreme Court:

•Allowed the appeal. 

•Set aside the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. 

•Restored the Executing Court's order rejecting the objections under Section 47 CPC. 

•Held that the compromise decree remained valid and executable. 

•Made no order as to costs. 

The judgment reiterates that the scope of objections under Section 47 CPC is limited and cannot be used to reopen issues that have already been conclusively decided. It also clarifies that a duly verified compromise decree cannot be declared a nullity on erroneous factual assumptions. The decision reinforces the principles of finality of litigation, execution of decrees and the limited jurisdiction of executing courts while dealing with objections to execution proceedings.