KAPADAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERSversusKAMATAM SANGALAPPA AND OTHERS

               [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
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                             541

Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others


     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/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 – 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                                                        [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                             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.

1.     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.
2.     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.
3.     On the other hand, the Kapadam (appellants herein) sect of
       Gungulakunta village resisted the claim. The suit, O.S. No. 486 of
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                       543

Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others


      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.
4.    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.
5.    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.
6.    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.
7.    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                                                        [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       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.
8.     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.
9.     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.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                       545

Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others


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                                                      [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       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
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                     547

Kapadam Sangalappa and Others v. Kamatam Sangalappa and Others


     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                                                     [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       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