SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Indu Devi - Appellant
Versus
Indira Devi - Respondent
RSA 82 of 2021 & CM Appls. 41610 of 2021, 41611 of 2021 and 41612 of 2021
Decided On : 24-11-2021




A statement made on oath before a trial court is binding, and execution proceedings must proceed as per the decree unless valid grounds for retraction are established.

Headnote:(A) Contempt of Court Act, 1972 - Suit for permanent injunction - Execution of decree - Property dispute - Statements made by defendants to not dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law - Appeal against execution barred by limitation due to undue delay and lack of due diligence - Execution proceedings to continue as per statement made on oath. (Paras 3, 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction against dispossession from property, where statements recorded indicated willingness of the defendants to respect due process. The plaintiff later alleged forced dispossession leading to contempt of court proceedings and subsequent execution petitions. (Paras 3, 6, 8)

Findings of Court:
The appeal against the execution was barred by limitation and unsubstantiated claims regarding the statements made by defendants were dismissed. An executing court's capacity to reassess factual matters is limited, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to prior statements made on record. (Paras 10, 14)

Issues: Key issues included the validity of defendants' statements given under oath and the timeline regarding the filing of appeals in relation to limitations. (Paras 10, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a statement made on oath before the trial court is binding, and a party cannot retract without valid grounds. The burden of proof lies on appellants to establish any claim of coercion or misrepresentation, which they failed to do. (Paras 10, 14)

Result: The second appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. appeal was barred by limitation. (Para 10)
3. arguments regarding alleged fraud in the initial statements. (Para 11)
4. court analysis of statements and judgment validity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. final dismissal of the second appeal. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--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/order 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top