The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim of fraud must be supported by merit, and execution proceedings seeking execution of a decree should be upheld.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present second appeal arises out of the final JUDGMENT dated 12th February, 2020 passed by the ld. ADJ-1, North District, Delhi (First Appellate Court), vide which the first appeal against the order dated 5th April 2012, passed in Suit No. 556/10 and the order dated 8th February 2019, passed in Execution Case No. 54409/2016, has been dismissed.

3. The brief background of the present second appeal is that a suit was filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff Smt. Indira Devi i.e. mother-in-law of Smt. Sindhu Devi- Defendant No.1 seeking permanent injunction against dispossession from the property bearing Old Jhuggi No. CN-272, D Block, Near Milk Dairy, Shahabad Dairy, Delhi (hereinafter, "suit property"). In the said suit, she had arrayed two ladies i.e. her daughter-in-law Smt. Sindhu Devi as Defendant No.1, and Smt. Indu Devi as Defendant No.2. The Defendant No. 2 in the said suit is the Appellant in the present proceedings.

The prayers sought in the said suit were as under:

"a. An order for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants their agents, staffs etc. or any person acting on their behalf not to disposes of the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law the property bearing Jhuggi No. CN-272, situated D-Block near Milk Dairy Shahibabad Delhi more specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan, in the interest of justice.

b. Any other relief may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

4. The said suit was filed in October, 2010, and on 5th January, 2012, statements were made by the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 before the Trial Court, to the following effect:

"Statement of Sh. Vijay Khanna, Ld. Counsel (D-52-99), for defendant no. 1.

Without Oath

I am the counsel for defendant no.1 in the present case. I have instructions from the defendant no.1 that without prejudice to rights of the defendant no.1 and without admitting the contents of the plaint, she will not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property bearing no. Jhuggi No. CN-272, D-Block, Near Milk Dairy, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi without following the due process of law.

xxx

DW-2: Statement of Smt. Indu Devi, W/o Sh. Ram Avtar, R/o. Jhuggi, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.

ON SA

I am the defendant in the present case. Without prejudice to my rights and without admitting the contents of the plaint, I state that except by due process of law, I will not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property bearing no. Jhuggi No. CN-272, D-Block, Near Milk Dairy, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi."

5. In view of the above two statements made by the Defendant Nos.1 & 2, the Plaintiff also made a statement before the Trial Court to the following effect:

"PW-1: Statement of Smt. Indira Devi, W/o. Sh. Sant Lal Mandal, R/o. Old Jhuggi No.CN-272, Near D-Block Milk Dairy, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.

ON SA

I am the plaintiff in the present case. I am satisfied with the statement of the defendant no. 2 and counsel for defendant no.1, that they will not dispossess me without following the due process of law from the suit property. Hence, I do not want to proceed further with the present case against defendants. Present case may be disposed off as withdrawn."

6. Having recorded the above statements on behalf of the Defendants as well as the Plaintiff, the suit was disposed of as satisfied by the ld. ACJ, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (Trial Court) on 5th January 2012. The order of the Trial Court reads as under:

"It is stated by the counsel for defendant that defendants are willing to give a statement that they shall not dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property without due process of law. Plaintiff also submits that if defendants