Point of Law : An assertion that records have been tampered with is a serious charge which must necessarily be proved with the aid of cogent material and evidence.

ORDER :

1. This Execution First Appeal assails an order of 06 July 2022 passed by the Executing Court rejecting the objections preferred by the appellant under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“the Code”]. The dispute emanates from a decree passed by the competent court on 10 February 2021 in C.S. No.811/2019 for recovery of possession of a farmhouse bearing No.22, Road No.1, Silver Oak Farm Houses, Ghitroni, New Delhi, forming part of Khasra No.466,493,506/2,533/1 and 533/2.

2. The appeal filed by the judgment debtor against the aforesaid decree came to be dismissed by this Court on 07 October 2021. Warrants of possession are stated to have been issued in the interregnum on 24 September 2021. Pursuant to the said warrants coming to be issued, the bailiff appointed by the Court is stated to have visited the suit property on 08 October 2021. The handing over of possession was resisted by the appellant and others who were present on the suit property. The evidence to that effect was also placed before the Executing Court. In the execution proceedings which were initiated and were numbered as Ex. No.131/2021, the appellant filed her objections on 26 October 2021. In those objections which were asserted to be referable to Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of the Code, the appellant laid a claim upon the suit property based on a Will dated 06 August 2018 stated to have been executed by the father of the decree holders in her favour. It was the case of the appellant that in terms of that Will executed by the father of the decree holders, the entire suit property had been bequeathed to her.

3. The decree holders controverted the aforesaid and challenged the authenticity of the Will as well as the case set forth by the appellant here. One of the objections which was taken was that their father could not have bequeathed more than fifty per cent of the suit property since the other half fell in the share of a HUF. It was additionally contended that the suit property had been originally leased out to M/s Anjor Agro Pvt. Ltd. on 29 May 2011. It is also their case that Anjor Pvt. Ltd. vacated the suit property consequent to orders passed upon an eviction suit on 15 February 2018. It was further asserted that it was the judgment debtor who was thereafter inducted and continued to remain in possession of the suit property till its lease was terminated on 15 October 2019. The decree holders further assert that all correspondence relating to the suit property was exchanged between them and the judgment debtor and that the appellant never asserted or claimed any right, title or interest in the suit property till the filling of her objections on 26 October 2021.

4. On 09 December 2021, the appellant filed a rejoinder affidavit in the execution proceedings. The additional documents on which the entire dispute revolves are stated to have been filed around the same time. They were tendered along with an index which bears the signature of the lawyer of the appellant. It admittedly formed part of the court record. The index to the additional documents refers to a Will of 05 August 2018 stated to have been executed by the father of the decree holders in favor of the appellant. However, the copy of the Will enclosed therewith and placed on the record bears the date of 05 October 2018. When the objections were taken up for consideration by the Executing Court, this evident and apparent discrepancy in the stand taken by the appellant was highlighted and brought to the fore by the decree holders. It was pointed out that the original objections were based on a Will allegedly executed in favor of the appellant on 06 August 2018. The decree holders pointed out that subsequently the appellant has rested her case on a Will dated 05 October 2018. The Executing Court was also apprised of the evident deviations and contradictions in the Wills of 06 August 2018 and 05 October 2018. The decree holders point out that while in terms of the former Will