Execution of compromise decree upheld where declared worship rights flowed from the decree and limitation ran from obstruction.

Execution was held maintainable where a compromise decree had long regulated the parties' turns in seva puja and receipt of offerings, because the claimed entitlement flowed necessarily from the declaration and was not a mere ineffectual declaration. The objection that the execution application was time-barred was rejected, as limitation was treated as running from the later obstruction to performance rather than from the date of the decree, given that the decree had been acted upon for years before resistance arose. The revision was dismissed and the executing court's view was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution application was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the compromise decree declaring rights to perform seva puja and receive offerings was inexecutable as a mere declaratory decree.

Issue (i): Whether the execution application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation for execution was treated as running from the date of obstruction to execution and not merely from the date of the compromise decree, because the decree had been acted upon for years and the dispute arose only when the judgment debtors later obstructed performance of the rights declared under the decree.

Conclusion: The objection that the execution application was time-barred was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the compromise decree declaring rights to perform seva puja and receive offerings was inexecutable as a mere declaratory decree.

Analysis: A bare declaratory decree without consequential relief is ordinarily not executable, but the right to worship and to receive offerings is a civil right capable of declaration and enforcement. In the present case, the decree was a compromise decree regulating the parties' turns in seva puja and offerings, had been acted upon for a long period, and the consequential right to enjoy the declared entitlement flowed necessarily from the declaration itself. On that footing, the decree was not treated as a mere ineffective declaration.

Conclusion: The decree was held to be executable.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because the executing court's view that the execution petition was within limitation and that the compromise decree could be executed was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a compromise decree declaring civil rights has been acted upon and the relief claimed flows necessarily from the declaration, execution is maintainable, and limitation for resisting execution may run from the date of obstruction rather than the date of the decree.

---