Ramesh Gaikwad And Another vs *N.S.Prakasam And Another on 21 November, 2016
16. The law is fairly settled right from the Division Bench
expression of the Allahabad High Court in Pt. Balmukand
(supra) that was followed by several expressions that referred
the earlier expressions of the Calcutta High Court, Patna High
Court, Allahabad High Court and referring to the said Division
Bench of Allahabad in Pt. Balmukand (supra), several other
High Courts delivered the expressions including Mysore High
Court in 1973, Delhi High Court in 1975 and 1976, apart from
the Apex Court on the scope of decree whether it
tantamounts to beyond scope of the relief granted in the
decree and referring to Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab
(AIR 1979 SC 1876), from what is laid down by the Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court in Pt. Balmukand (supra) the
Apex Court in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishore Lal referring to
the scope of Sections 21, 22 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963, Section 47 C.P.C. order II Rule 2 C.P.C. and Section 55
of the Transfer of Property Act, particularly in paras 11 to 16
and conclusion in paras 29 and 30 held that Section 22 of the
Specific Relief Act 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 of specific performance. These
requirements he can claim notwithstanding anything
contained in the C.P.C. contrary. Sub-section (2) of 22 of the
Act specifically provides that all these requirements cannot be
granted by the Court unless they have been specifically
claimed. However, says, where the plaintiff has not
specifically claimed in the initial stages, Court may permit the
plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings to include one or
more of the reliefs by means of amendment and on such
terms, as it depends prayer the only purpose of this whole
enacted provision is to avoid multiplicity of suits and that the
plaintiff may get appropriate relief without being hampered
by procedural complications. The expression in an appropriate
case used in Section 22 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 contract for the transfer of
immovable property that is to be done, where the
circumstances demanding the relief in the specific
performance of a contract of sale expressed within its ambit
not only the execution of the sale deed but also possession
conveyed under the sale deed and it is not always be
necessary for the plaintiff to specifically claim possession over
the property as the relief of possession being inherent in the
relief for specific performance of the contract for sale.
Besides that, the Act provides for amendment on such terms
as may be just for including a claim for such relief at any
stage of the proceedings. In case where exclusive possession is
with contracting party, a decree of specific performance of
contract for same covered implicitly, as without specifically
providing for delivery Court may not give complete relief to
the D.Hr. nor can satisfy the decree against J.Dr. completely,
Thus, he is bound not only to execute sale deed but also to
put the property in possession of the D.Hr. This is in
consonance with Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act.
The word proceeding has not been defined in the Act, that
term is very comprehensive and it includes execution
proceedings.