Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The question, therefore, is as to whether present case is covered by clause (a) or (d) of Section 16 of the Code on the one hand or proviso thereof is applicable and therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Code can also be invoked.
9. To find answer to this question, we refer to certain precedents of the Apex Court as well as this Court. First case which needs mention is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3712. In that case, vide agreement dated 12.7.1986 immovable property situate in Indore, MP, was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiffs. Suit for specific performance was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (now Mumbai) praying, inter alia, for a declaration that agreement dated 12.7.1986 and Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.8.1987 was still subsisting and binding on the defendant and a decree for specific performance of the said agreement and the memorandum was sought. The defendant took objection to the maintainability of that suit in Mumbai on the ground that immovable property was situate in Indore, MP. This plea was not accepted by either the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It is in these circumstances the appeal came to be filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court, before the Supreme Court, by the defendant. The Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance simplicitor, in the absence of an explicit prayer for delivery of possession of the suit property, would not be treated as a "suit for land." After taking note of certain judgments of the High Courts as well as that of Federal Court, the Supreme Court summed up the legal position, with approval, in the following words:-

12. We may point out at this stage itself that earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 94 was not taken note of by the Supreme Court. In that case, the decree for specific performance simplicitor was passed by the Court. In the execution of the said decree, the decree holder wanted possession as well. In view of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 question arose before the Court as to whether decree for possession had to be specifically sought for. Referring to the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act the contention of the judgment debtor was that as the plaintiffs had not claimed any relief for possession in the suit, they were precluded from claiming that relief at a subsequent stage. This contention of the judgment debtor was not accepted holding that Section 22 was an enabling provision. The legislative history behind enacting Section 22, Specific Relief Act, 1963, was noted and the Court opined that even if such a relief was not claimed at the initial stage of the suit, the Court could permit the plaintiff to include this relief at the subsequent stage. We may extract the following discussion in this behalf from the said judgment:-

(Emphasis supplied) 5.5 Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3712 A suit for specific performance relating to a property at Indore was instituted at Mumbai. The Supreme Court held the suit to be maintainable on the ground that the suit for specific performance simplicitor in the absence of an explicit prayer for delivery of possession of the suit property would not be treated as a suit for land. However, the earlier judgment of Babu Lal (supra) was not taken note of in Adcon's case. In Babu Lal's case, the Supreme Court held that the relief of possession is inherent in the relief of specific performance under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the plaintiffs can seek an amendment to claim delivery of possession at any stage of the suit. Adcon's case was distinguished by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (supra) and Pantaloon Retail India case (supra). The findings of the Division Bench of this Court in Vipul Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-