Declaratory Decree Can't Be Set Aside Merely Becuase Plaintiff Didn't Seek Its Execution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the mere non-execution of a decree passed in a declaratory suit, particularly where the plaintiff is already in possession of the property, cannot be a valid ground to justify a delayed challenge to that decree.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Rajasthan High Court's ruling that had affirmed the remand of the respondent's appeal for fresh consideration, which had been filed after an inordinate delay of 31 years from the decree passed in favour of the appellant.

The decree was passed in 1975; however, the appeal was only filed in 2006, which was rejected on the grounds of limitation by the First Appellate Authority. However, the revenue board remanded the appeal for a fresh hearing, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court, prompting the plaintiff to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Opposing the plaintiff's appeal, before the Supreme Court, the Respondent, to justify the delayed filing of the appeal against the decree, contended that failure of the plaintiff to execute the decree entitled them to challenge the decree.

Rejecting this contention, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that when the Appellant-plaintiff was already in possession of the suit property before the passing of the decree in his favor, it was not incumbent upon him to seek execution of the same.

“Admittedly, there is gross delay of 31 years in challenging the decree passed on 16.08.1975 which was challenged in the year 2006 after 31 years. The contention that no execution was filed to evict the respondents is only to be noticed to be rejected. Especially reckoning the assertion of the appellant that he is in possession of the entire lands as of now and in any event a claim for execution at this stage based on the decree would also stand barred. The declaratory decree in favour of the appellant cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the appellant did not seek for execution since there is no presumption that the possession remained with the defendants after the passing of the decree; which continued possession had also not been substantiated.”, the court observed

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, thereby restoring the effect of the 1975 decree passed in the Appellant's favor.

Cause Title: Hari Ram Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 372

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arpit Gupta, AOR Mr. Divya Pratap Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vansh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Akansha Agarwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harsh Tikoo, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv. Mr. Rahul Rai, Adv. Mr. Misbahul Haque, Adv. Mr. Ramkishan Saraswat, Adv.