Executing court cannot add tax liability beyond a consent decree or grant further relief without evidence.

An executing court cannot enlarge a consent decree by imposing a personal tax liability on the judgment-debtor where the decree only required transfer of the property and execution of conveyancing documents. The court rejected the request to compel an undertaking for tax responsibility because the decree did not create that obligation and the transfer deed showed the company as vendor. The remaining prayers relating to surrender value and other liabilities also failed at the execution stage because factual proof was lacking, so no further relief could be granted on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in execution of a consent decree, the executing court could direct the judgment-debtor to undertake or bear the tax liability arising from transfer of the Park Street property, and whether the remaining monetary and ancillary prayers could be granted without evidence.

Analysis: The consent decree required transfer of the property and execution of the necessary conveyancing documents, but it did not impose a specific obligation on the judgment-debtor to assume personal tax liability beyond the terms of the decree. An executing court is bound by the decree under execution and cannot enlarge its scope by adding a liability not contemplated by the decree or by issuing a direction inconsistent with the governing tax law. The court also noted that the transfer deed showed the company as the vendor, and in the absence of a demonstrated legal basis to shift the tax burden personally to the judgment-debtor, the requested undertaking could not be compelled. As regards the remaining prayers relating to surrender value and other liabilities, factual proof was required and the record was insufficient for final adjudication in execution.

Conclusion: The prayer seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to assume the tax responsibility was rejected, and the remaining prayers were also not allowed for want of evidence.

Final Conclusion: The application in execution did not succeed, as the executing court declined to expand the consent decree by imposing a tax obligation not found in it and refused the other reliefs at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: An executing court cannot travel beyond the terms of the decree under execution or impose a liability not created by the decree and unsupported by the governing statute.

---