Specific Performance Decree For Agreement To Sell Can Be Executed Without Separate Relief For Possession : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that it would not be necessary for the decree-holder seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell simpliciter to file a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”) for claiming possession of suit property.
The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan dismissed the civil appeal filed by the subsequent purchasers of the suit property challenging the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which held in favor of the plaintiff noting that the executing court committed an error in denying the possessory right to the plaintiff when a specific performance suit was decreed in plaintiff's favor.
The short question that falls for the Court's consideration was whether the executing court could grant possession if a decree only orders specific performance without explicitly mentioning possession of the property.
Answering positively, the court said that the decree-holder of the suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell need not be required to file a suit seeking possession of the suit property under Section 22 of the Act.
The legal position as flowing from the aforesaid observation is that when the transfer of property's possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed, then there's no need to separately claim relief of possession under Section 22 of the Act.
The Court referred to Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others (1982) to clarify that the relief of possession is to be claimed only “in appropriate cases” where the relief of possession cannot be effectively granted to the decree-holder without specifically claiming relief for possession.
“for instance, in cases where the property agreed to be conveyed is jointly held by the defendant with other persons, or cases where after the contract the property has passed in possession of a third person, then the plaintiff, in order to obtain complete and effective relief, must claim the relief of transfer of possession over the property defendant along with the relief of partition, etc., if required.”, the Court said in Babu Lal's case.
Recently, the same bench observed that when possession of the immovable property is transferred implicitly upon execution of the sale deed, a separate suit seeking possession of the immovable property is not required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”).
Appearance:
Mr. Jasbir Singh, Adv. for the Petitioners
Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. for the respondents
Case Title: BIRMA DEVI & ORS. VERSUS SUBHASH & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 976