Judgment ( 1. ) WAS the Executing Court, justified in holding that the eviction decree passed in favour of applicant (decree-holder) stood vitiated by fraud? that is the point for determination in this revision. ( 2. ) APPLICANT had filed a suit for eviction of respondents No. l to 5 (judgment-debtors) from the suit house. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Eviction decree of the trial Court was maintained up to the second appeal by this Court. Since, the judgment-debtors failed to hand over vacant possession, applicant put the decree in execution. ( 3. ) IN execution proceedings, respondent No. 6 and 7 both filed separate applications under Order XXI Rule -. 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure to resist the. execution of the eviction decree and delivery of possession of the suit house. Each objector set up his/her. own title over the suit property and claimed that decree holder could not obtain possession from the judgment-debtors, they being tenants of the objectors. ( 4. ) APPLICANT opposed the applications under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code. After enquiry, executing Court rejected applications of respondent 6 and 7 as is clear from the findings recorded in paragraph 14 to 16 and 19 to 21 of the impugned order. But the Court below went on further and held that the applicant obtained the eviction decree by playing fraud, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath AIR 1994 S. C. 853, it was unexecutable and the Court below refused to deliver possession of the tenanted premises to the applicant. Hence this revision by the decree-holder as stated above. ( 5. ) IT is pertinent to point out that the objectors did not challenge the order of rejection of their application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC but they opposed the revision petition filed by the decree-holder. Judgment-debtors chose to remain silent spectators, no arguments were advance on their behalf. After hearing rival submissions and going through the record, in the opinion of this Court while passing the impugned order, the Court below exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it by law. ( 6. ) IT is undisputed that applicant purchased the suit property from Smt. Aulia Begum through a registered sale deed dated 14. 8. 1997. Thereafter, applicant filed eviction suit against respondent No. 1 to 5. ( 6. ) IT is undisputed that applicant purchased the suit property from Smt. Aulia Begum through a registered sale deed dated 14. 8. 1997. Thereafter, applicant filed eviction suit against respondent No. 1 to 5. Respondents No. 6 and 7, Smt. Rashida Begum and Ashfaq Bahadur are close relations of Smt. Aulia Begum and were aware of earlier litigation including execution of sale deed as aforesaid. Judgment-debtors contested the eviction suit right up to this court without any avail. The eviction decree passed against them under M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, was maintained and became final upon dismissal of the second appeal preferred by judgment-debtors. Since the judgment-debtors failed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises, the decree was put in execution. No objection was raised by the judgment-debtors. On the other hand respondent No. 6 and 7 came forward with applications under order XXI Rule 97 of the Code. The executing Court while rejecting their applications, held that the applicant/decree-holder could not execute the eviction decree and obtain possession of the suit house because the decree was tainted with fraud. ( 7. ) WAS the eviction decree passed -in favour of applicant vitiated by fraud and as such a nullity? ( 8. ) BROADLY speaking, fraud embraces all means which human ingenuity can devise to gain an advantage over another. In its general or generic sense, it comprises all acts, omissions involving breach of legal duty and resultant damage to another or violation of a trust or confidence which such person had a right to repose in him. Amongst other things, fraud consists of deception practiced in order to induce another to part with property or to surrender some rights and which accomplishes the end designed. In other words, some deceitful practice or willful device resorted to, with intention to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury may amount to or result in fraud unless there is delictum i. e. there is no fraud in reaching the desired end by legal means. Alleging fraud has grave consequences and when relied upon as cause of action or defense, fraud must be specifically alleged with all material particulars. In alleging fraud, a general averment without setting out the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud, is insufficient. Alleging fraud has grave consequences and when relied upon as cause of action or defense, fraud must be specifically alleged with all material particulars. In alleging fraud, a general averment without setting out the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud, is insufficient. It is essential that the facts and circumstances which constitute the fraud should be set out clearly, concisely, and with sufficient particularity to apprise the opposite party of what he is called upon to answer and enable the court to determine on the facts pleaded, is there any foundation, prima facie for the charge of fraud, in the case in hand, it is difficult to hold that the appellant fraudulently obtained an eviction decree against the judgment-debtors. From the material available on record, it is clear, both respondents No. 6 and 7 knew of the registered sale deed in favour of the applicant and hence, they can not be heard to say that the eviction decree is tainted with fraud. Once this is clear, then there was no justification for the executing Court to go behind the decree and set it at naught. The general rule is that the executing court must execute the decree as it is except when it is without jurisdiction or obtained by fraud, which is the not case here. In a suit for eviction of a tenant under the provisions of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, proof of relationship of landlord and tenant is most essential and not the title which is only incidental. In the case in hand, pleadings do not conform to the legal requirement of fraud. Except for bald assertion that does not take the allegation anywhere, there is no foundation in pleadings or evidence to sustain the charge of fraud either on the Court or on the judgment-debtors. Surprisingly the executing Court goes behind the decree on such vague allegations and holds the decree a nullity. Thus, the executing court clearly acted beyond jurisdiction or at any rate with material irregularity and illegality. ( 9. ) NOW coming to the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), wherein it is held, that a judgment or decree obtained by playing a fraud on the court is non- est in the eyes of law. In that case, the facts were thus. One jagannath was working as a clerk with one Chunilal Sowcar. ( 9. ) NOW coming to the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (supra), wherein it is held, that a judgment or decree obtained by playing a fraud on the court is non- est in the eyes of law. In that case, the facts were thus. One jagannath was working as a clerk with one Chunilal Sowcar. Jagannath purchased the properties in dispute at the court auction on behalf of Chunilal. By a registered deed, Jagannath had relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of Chunilal. Meanwhile judgment-debtors had paid the total decretal amount to Chunilal. Without disclosing these material facts, Jagannath filed a suit for partition of property and obtained a preliminary decree. It was when jagannath had put the preliminary decree for partition, possession and mesne profits, appellants, came to know these facts and they opposed the application contending that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court and, as such, it was a nullity. It was in this factual backdrop, their lordship of the Supreme Court sustained the contention and held non-disclosure of relinquishment deed at the trial tantamount to playing fraud, on the court. Facts of the case in hand, as stated above, are clearly distinguishable because objectors knew about the execution and registration of the sale deed but they did not take any steps to challenge the sale-deed. The decision of the Supreme court in S. P. Chengalvaraya. Naidu supra was considered in a subsequent decision in Gayatri Devi vs. Shashi Pal Singh (2005) 5 SCC 527 and it was held that fraud must necessarily be pleaded and proved before it unravels everything. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that executing court: acted illegally touching its jurisdiction. Accordingly this revision is allowed and the impugned order so far as it relates to and holds that the eviction decree is tainted with fraud and is unexecutable is hereby set-aside with costs throughout. Counsels Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) payable jointly or severally by non-applicants. Order accordingly. Revision allowed.