Where formal possession of a house is delivered to a decree-holder under a dakhalnama, the judgment-debtor remaining in actual physical possession of the house, the latter cannot be said to be guilty of an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code [Kewal v. Tufail Ahmad, 1925 All 592. In the matter of Gobind Prasad, 2 All 265 (followed); Gobind Ram v. Nanbat, 1924 All 2].
Under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, unless the contract is shown, the presumption that the acts of a court have been regularly carried out prevails. Where a dakhalnama, indicating formal delivery of possession, is given to a decee-holder, then, in the absence of any evidence of fraud in connection with that delivery of possession, the court should presume that formal possession of the property mentioned in the dakhalnama was given to the decree-holder. [Baijnath v. Sri Bhagwan, 96 IC 591].