2026 INSC 921
Pradeep & Ors. v. Jagadishwari & Ors.
Supreme Court of India — Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6565 of 2020
Judgment dated: 20 August 2026
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
I. HEAD NOTES
1. Partition suit instituted in 1940 — Preliminary and Final Decrees — Execution — Paras 2–3
The litigation originated in a partition suit instituted in 1940 by a minor, in which preliminary and final decrees were passed. The decree-holder, Sri Prabhakarlal Mohanlal Kalawar, initiated execution proceedings in 1979.
During execution, it was discovered that a property situated at Solapur, in which the decree-holder claimed a 1/4th share, had not initially been included in the suit.
An application to include the Solapur property was initially rejected on the ground that it was self-acquired property. The order was reversed in appeal on 23.01.1973, directing inclusion of the property in the partition. The decree mentioned the extent as 15 acres, whereas the actual extent was 25 acres.
2. Sale in favour of third-party purchasers — Para 3
Before the Execution Petition was filed in 1979, a portion of the Solapur property had been purchased by a third party. The purchaser claimed protection under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and also raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the executing Court at Belgaum under Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Transfer of execution proceedings — Para 4
By order dated 17.10.2006, the execution proceedings were directed to be transferred from Belgaum to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Solapur, having regard to Section 39(4) CPC.
The Solapur Court, however, returned the proceedings because the judgment, decree and record were in Kannada without proper translation into English or Marathi. The records were consequently remitted to the Belgaum Court.
4. Compromise between decree-holder and purchasers — Para 5
In 2011, during the pendency of the execution proceedings, the decree-holder and the purchasers, whose successors are the present appellants, entered into a compromise.
Under the compromise, Rs.10,51,000/- was paid as full and final value of the decree-holder's claim concerning R.S. No.329/1, renumbered as 116/1, measuring 2 acres 39 guntas at Solapur.
The decree-holder unconditionally undertook not to make any further claim against JD Nos.12–15 or their successors.
The executing Court recorded the compromise and satisfaction of the decree against JD Nos.12–15 and dismissed the Execution Petition against them on 29.09.2011.
5. Challenge to compromise by sons of decree-holder — Paras 6–8
One of the sons of the decree-holder subsequently sought impleadment and challenged the compromise, asserting that he and his two brothers had an independent share in the property.
The application for impleadment was rejected on 04.03.2013.
The respondents thereafter instituted WP No.83144 of 2013 before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench.
6. Independent claim of 1/4th share — Paras 8–11
The executing Court found that the sons' claim of joint family property and collusion was not established. It also noticed that an earlier partition suit instituted by the sons against their father and others had been dismissed, as was the appeal therefrom.
The Supreme Court further found that the writ petitioners asserted a 1/4th share in the Solapur property without tracing their lineage to the original parties to the partition suit.
7. Purchasers stepping into the rights of co-sharers — Paras 11 and 13
The Supreme Court held that JD Nos.12–15 had purchased the property from JD No.3A, another co-sharer, and had also acquired the decree-holder's rights in the extent covered by the compromise.
The present appellants, therefore, stepped into the shares of the co-sharer and the decree-holder to the extent of the rights acquired by their predecessors.
8. Section 39(4) CPC and acceptance of compromise — Para 12
The Supreme Court held that although Section 39(4) CPC prohibits a Court from executing a decree against a person or property outside its jurisdiction, there was no prohibition against the Belgaum Court accepting and recording a compromise between the decree-holder and JD Nos.12–15 concerning the Solapur property.
Consequently, no further transfer of the execution proceeding to Solapur was necessary for the purpose of recording the compromise.
9. Remedy of respondents — Paras 13–14
The respondents' asserted 1/4th share was held to be an independent claim which did not arise through the decree-holder.
The Supreme Court held that such claim had to be pursued independently before the jurisdictional Court at Solapur, including by seeking partition and separate allotment, subject to applicable legal limitations.
The respondents had no locus standi to challenge the compromise entered into by the decree-holder because they did not claim through him.
10. Final adjudication concerning the property in possession of JD Nos.12–15 — Para 14
The Supreme Court expressly held that the sons of the decree-holder and their legal heirs who were respondents 7.1 to 7.3 had no claim against the property in possession of JD Nos.12–15, and that, as against them, the order of the executing Court had attained finality.
II. FACTS AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASE
1. Original partition litigation — Para 2
The litigation commenced with a partition suit instituted in 1940 by a minor.
A preliminary decree and thereafter a final decree were passed.
The decree-holder initiated execution in 1979.
Thus, the present appeal arose from execution proceedings originating from a partition decree passed in a litigation having its inception several decades earlier.
2. Solapur property and its inclusion in the partition — Paras 3 and 9
The Solapur property was initially omitted from the suit.
The attempt to include it in the final decree was initially rejected on the finding that it was self-acquired property.
That finding was reversed in appeal on 23.01.1973, and the property was directed to be included in the partition.
The decree mentioned the property as measuring 15 acres, whereas its actual extent was 25 acres. The typing error regarding extent was subsequently corrected on an application made by the decree-holder.
3. Sale deed dated 01.03.1965 — Para 8
A portion of the Solapur property remaining in possession of JD No.3A had been sold to M/s Suratwala Brothers under sale deed dated 01.03.1965.
The purchasers were represented in the execution proceedings by JD Nos.12–15.
This sale is material because the present appellants claimed through those purchasers.
4. Earlier proceedings concerning the sons of the decree-holder — Para 8
The executing Court noticed that the sons of the decree-holder had previously instituted a partition suit against their father and others.
That suit was dismissed, and the appeal was also dismissed.
The executing Court consequently rejected the later attempt to intervene in the execution proceedings on the basis of the alleged independent share and alleged collusion.
5. Compromise memo of 2011 — Para 5
The compromise memo is the principal document governing the decree-holder's claim against JD Nos.12–15.
The material terms recorded by the Supreme Court were:
payment of Rs.10,51,000/-;
payment described as full and final value of the decree-holder's entire claim against the property concerned;
unconditional undertaking by the decree-holder not to make any future claim against JD Nos.12–15 or their successors;
acceptance of the compromise by the executing Court;
recording of satisfaction of the decree against JD Nos.12–15;
dismissal of the Execution Petition against them on 29.09.2011.
6. Impleadment application dated 22.10.2011 — Paras 6–7
One son of the decree-holder sought impleadment, asserting that he and his two brothers possessed an independent share in the property.
The Supreme Court noted from the application that the original plaintiff was alive at that stage and that the proposed impleadment was intended to contest the compromise on the basis of an independent share.
The application was rejected on 04.03.2013.
7. Execution Petition record — Para 10
The Supreme Court examined Annexure P-1 and noted that persons who were parties to the final decree were also parties to the execution proceedings.
The record showed that two sets of legal heirs had been impleaded, including persons tracing their ancestry to Kalawar family members.
III. LAW APPLIED AND DISCUSSED
1. Section 39(4), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Paras 3, 4 and 12
Section 39(4) CPC was relied upon to question the jurisdiction of the Belgaum executing Court to execute the decree against property situated at Solapur.
The Supreme Court accepted the statutory restriction in relation to execution of a decree against a person or property outside the Court's jurisdiction.
However, the Court distinguished execution from the acceptance and recording of a compromise.
Finding — Para 12
The Court held that Section 39(4) did not prevent the Belgaum Court from accepting the compromise between the decree-holder and JD Nos.12–15.
Since the compromise itself brought the execution claim of the decree-holder against those judgment debtors to an end, there was no requirement of transferring the proceeding to Solapur merely for recording the compromise.
2. Effect of compromise in execution proceedings — Paras 5, 11–14
The decree-holder had a decreed 1/4th share.
He compromised that claim against JD Nos.12–15 concerning the specific property purchased by them.
The Supreme Court treated the compromise as binding upon the decree-holder and those claiming through him.
The Court distinguished that position from an independent claim asserted by persons who did not claim through the decree-holder.
3. Rights of purchasers from a co-sharer — Paras 11 and 13
The Court applied the principle that a purchaser from a co-sharer acquires the rights of that co-sharer to the extent of the interest conveyed.
JD Nos.12–15 had purchased from JD No.3A, another co-sharer.
They had also obtained the decree-holder's rights to the extent covered by the compromise.
The appellants, as successors to those purchasers, therefore stepped into the rights acquired from the co-sharer and from the decree-holder under the compromise.
4. Locus standi to challenge the compromise — Paras 11 and 14
The Supreme Court held that the writ petitioners could not challenge the compromise because they were not claiming through the decree-holder.
Their claim was an independent claim of 1/4th share.
Accordingly, the compromise of the decree-holder's own 1/4th share could not be challenged by them merely by asserting an independent share.
The Court expressly held that they had no locus standi to contest the compromise.
5. Remedy of an independent co-sharer — Paras 13–14
The Supreme Court did not hold that an independent co-sharer was without remedy.
On the contrary, it expressly preserved the right of the respondents to pursue their independent claim before the jurisdictional Court at Solapur.
They could seek partition and separate allotment after establishing their descent from the original sharers.
That remedy was, however, subject to applicable legal limitations, including limitation.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. As to jurisdiction under Section 39(4) CPC — Para 12
The Belgaum Court could not execute the decree against the Solapur property contrary to Section 39(4) CPC.
However, acceptance and recording of the compromise did not amount to prohibited execution.
Therefore, the compromise could validly be accepted by the Belgaum Court.
2. As to the compromise — Paras 11–14
The decree-holder had validly compromised his own decreed claim against JD Nos.12–15 concerning the specified property.
The compromise was therefore affirmed.
3. As to the appellants' rights — Paras 11 and 13
The purchasers had acquired rights from JD No.3A, a co-sharer, and had also acquired the decree-holder's rights to the extent covered by the compromise.
The appellants, as successors, stepped into those rights.
4. As to the respondents' independent claim — Paras 13–14
The respondents' alleged 1/4th share was an independent claim.
They did not claim through the decree-holder.
Consequently, they could not challenge the compromise entered into by him.
5. As to remedy — Paras 13–14
The respondents were at liberty to pursue their independent partition claim before the jurisdictional Court at Solapur, subject to applicable legal limitations.
6. As to the property in possession of JD Nos.12–15 — Para 14
The Supreme Court expressly declared that respondents 7.1 to 7.3, being sons/legal heirs of the decree-holder before the Court, had no claim against the property in possession of JD Nos.12–15.
As against them, the order of the executing Court had attained finality.
V. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Karnataka High Court.
The compromise entered into between the decree-holder and JD Nos.12–15 was affirmed.
The Court held that Section 39(4) CPC did not prohibit the Belgaum Executing Court from accepting and recording the compromise, because no further execution against the Solapur property was thereby being undertaken.
The appellants, claiming through JD Nos.12–15, were entitled to the rights acquired by their predecessors from the co-sharer and from the decree-holder under the compromise, to the extent of those acquired rights.
The respondents, not claiming through the decree-holder, had no locus standi to challenge the compromise. Their independent claim of 1/4th share was left open to be pursued by appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court at Solapur, including a claim for partition and separate allotment, subject to applicable legal limitations.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the impugned High Court order, rejected the writ petition, affirmed the compromise, and preserved the respondents' independent remedy before the competent Court.
Civil Appeal allowed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
