The main legal point established is that the plea regarding property ownership can be barred by the Benami Transactions Act if no fiduciary relationship is established.

1. This Execution First Appeal impugns the order [dated 4th November, 2016 in Execution No.10/14 (New No.60653/16) of the Court of Additional District Judge-03 (West)] of dismissal of objections preferred by the appellant along with her brother and sister (who have not been impleaded as parties to this appeal) to the execution sought by the respondent no.1/decree holder of a compromise decree [dated 2nd November, 2012 in Suit No.513/2012 of the Court of Additional District Judge-06 (West)] in a suit filed by the respondent no.1/decree holder against respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor Bhagwati Devi, being the mother of the appellant/objector.

2. This appeal came up first before this Court on 13th March, 2018, when notice limited to the aspect of exploring possibility of amicable settlement between the parties was ordered to be issued and the operation of the impugned order stayed. The appellant/objector, after the last date, has not taken steps for service of the un-served respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor Bhagwati Devi.

3. The counsel for the appellant states that the appellant/objector, respondent no.1/decree holder and the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor are present in Court in person.

4. The counsel for the appellant has been heard and the copies of the relevant Trial Court record annexed to this appeal perused.

5. The respondent no.1/decree holder instituted the suit, for recovery of possession, on the basis of title, of property no.E-690, Camp No.2, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi, from the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor. The said suit was compromised in mediation, where under the respondent no.1/plaintiff/decree holder agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor for vacating the property.

6. Upon the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor not vacating the property, execution was sought and in which as aforesaid, the appellant along with her sister and brother, being the daughters and son of the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor, filed objections and against dismissal of which objections this appeal has been preferred.

7. It was the objection of the appellant and her sister and brother, (i) that the respondent no.1/plaintiff/decree holder is their paternal grandfather; (ii) that though the appellant /objector and her sister and brother along with their mother i.e. respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor were in possession of the property, but the appellant/objector and her sister and brother were not made a party to the suit; (iii) that the property was purchased by the appellant/objector’s father, though in the name of the grandfather i.e. the respondent no.1/plaintiff/decree holder; (iv) that the appellant/objector and her sister and brother had not consented to the settlement arrived at by their mother, the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor, with the respondent no.1/plaintiff/decree holder; (v) the entire purchase consideration for the land underneath the property and for construction of the property, was incurred by the father of the appellant/objector and her sister and brother, on behalf of the appellant/objector and her sister and brother; (vi) that the respondent no.1/plaintiff/decree holder and the respondent no.2/defendant/judgment debtor were in collusion with each other; and, (vii) that the appellant/objector and her sister and brother were in possession of the property, being the legal representative of their father who was the owner of the property and who is missing for the last several years.

8. The sister and brother of the appellant/objector, who along with appellant/objector had filed objections, are obviously satisfied with dismissal of objections and have not appealed there against.

9. Though the counsel for the appellant/objector, before me, has sought to argue that it was not the case of the appellant that her father was the owner and it was the case of the appellant/objector that the appellant/objector herse