Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.304 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.

2. The revision petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale and also for recovery of possession. The lower Court passed a decree of specific performance by Judgement and Decree dated 29.4.2004. In the decree passed there is no mention about the relief of recovery of possession and the decree only says that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed Execution Petition for execution of the sale deed as the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, the sale deed was executed by the Court on 3.1.2007 and registered as Document No.45 of 2007 on 5.1.2007. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.118 of 2007 for delivery of possession of property and that petition was dismissed and against the same this revision is filed.

5. Admittedly, in the suit filed by the revision petitioner he prayed for specific performance of an agreement of sale and also for delivery of possession. No doubt, the lower Court granted a decree for specific performance and the decree is silent about the recovery of possession. In these circumstances, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the Judgement reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 818 (Babu Lal Vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal ) is relevant and is as follows:

 Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act which enacts a rule of pleading provides that a person in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, may ask for appropriate reliefs, namely, he may ask for possession, or for partition or for separate possession including the relief for specific performance. These reliefs he can claim, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil P.C., to the contrary. Sub-sec. (2) of this Section, however, specifically provides that these reliefs cannot be granted by the Court, unless they have been expressly claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.
The expression in an appropriate case in Section 22 (1) is very significant. The expression only indicates that it is not always incumbent on the plaintiff to claim possession or partition or separate possession in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of the immovable property. That has to be done where the circumstances demanding the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale embraced within its ambit not only the execution of the sale deed but also possession over the property conveyed under the sale deed. It may not always be necessary for the plaintiff to specifically claim possession over the property, the relief of possession being inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale. Besides, the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 22 provides for amendment of the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief at any stage of the proceedings. In a case where exclusive possession is with the contracting party a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree-holder. In order to satisfy the decree against him completely he is bound not only to execute the sale deed but also to put the property in possession of the decree-holder. This is in consonance with the provisions of Section 55 (1) of the T.P.Act which provides that the seller is bound to give, on being so required, the buyer or such person as he directs such possession of the property as its nature admits.

6. In the Judgement of this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 529 (S.Sampoornam Vs. P.V.Kuppuswamy) also the same principles are reiterated and it was held that even in the absence of any prayer for possession once a suit for specific performance is decreed the Court has got every power to order delivery of possession. Further, according to me, the Court has got power to grant the relief of possession even in the absence of any such prayer as per the proviso to Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act the Court shall at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include the relief. In my opinion, a discretion is vested on the Court to allow the amendment and even in the absence of any prayer and even in the absence of any application for amendment, the Court can grant the relief of recovery of possession once the suit is decreed for specific performance. These aspects were not properly appreciated by the Court below and the Court below approached the application in a pedantic manner and dismissed the application without appreciating the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of our High Court.