Summary
Subsequent purchasers challenged a High Court order directing the executing court to issue a warrant of possession under a decree for specific performance that did not expressly grant possession. Relying on Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, the Supreme Court held that the executing court can grant possession in such a case and dismissed the petition.
Issues
- Whether the executing court can deliver possession of the suit property where the suit was decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief of possession was granted.
Provisions considered
- Section 22, Specific Relief Act, 1963Following Babu Lal, the Court explained that relief of possession must be specifically claimed only in an appropriate case, such as jointly held property or property that has passed to a third person after the contract, and that such a claim may be added by amendment at any stage of the proceeding, including execution. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Section 55(1), Transfer of Property Act, 1882The seller's statutory duty, on being required, to give the buyer such possession as the nature of the property admits means that where exclusive possession is with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance simpliciter can give complete relief including possession. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Section 28(3), Specific Relief Act, 1963Noted, through the passage quoted from Rohit Kochhar, as read together with Section 22 and Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act in Babu Lal. (¶ 15)
Held
- Where exclusive possession of the suit property is with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance simpliciter, without expressly providing for delivery of possession, can give the decree holder complete relief: the judgment debtor must both execute the sale deed and put the decree holder in possession, consistent with Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Where possession cannot effectively be given without a specific claim, as where the property is held jointly with others or has passed to a third person after the contract, the plaintiff must claim possession (with partition if needed); Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act permits the plaint to be amended for this at any stage of the proceeding. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The word "proceeding" in Section 22 includes execution proceedings, so the court has ample power to allow such an amendment even at the execution stage. (¶ 14)
- Applying these principles, reiterated in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., the Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court's direction to the executing court to issue a warrant of possession in favour of the decree holders. (¶¶ 12, 15, 16)
Result
Delay condoned; special leave petition of the subsequent purchasers dismissed, leaving in place the High Court's direction to issue a warrant of possession to the decree holders.