S.22 SRA | Civil Courts May Grant Ancillary Reliefs To Give Full Effect To Decree For Specific Performance: Telangana High Court

The observation came from Justice Chillakur Sumalatha:

"The legal position regarding specific performance of contracts is well settled. One of the well established principles of law is that the Court neither loses its jurisdiction after grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio. Admittedly, if an ancillary or incidental relief is not granted, there would be no value to the decree of the Court which was passed in the suit.

Likewise, the sale deed executed by the Court would also loses its significance. In circumstances like this, to protect its own orders and to give them sanctity, the civil Courts are well empowered to grant such incidental or ancillary reliefs which would ultimately give sanctity to the decrees and orders passed by them. By raising illegal structures in the suit schedule property, the decree passed for specific performance cannot get frustrated. To make the decree and the sale deed effective, the Executing Court ordered for removal of the illegal structures that were made during the pendency of the execution proceedings."

The Court was hearing a challenge to order passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The facts of the case are as follows:

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the revision petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.11.1995 in respect of suit land. The same was decreed on 31.3.2003. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant to the said suit, was directed to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/decreeholders in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the balance of sale consideration.

The respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders filed an Execution Petition seeking the Court to direct the revision petitioner/defendant/judgment-debtor to execute a registered sale deed in their favour in respect of the suit schedule property.

In the light of failure of the revision petitioner/defendant/judgment-debtor to execute the sale deed, the Court below executed the registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/decree-holders. The respondents/decree-holders moved an application under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC, Order XXI Rule 35 CPC and Section 144 CPC seeking for delivery of possession of the schedule property. The Executing Court through orders dated 13.11.2017 allowed the said application. It ordered delivery of possession by dismantling the illegal structures raised by the revision petitioner/judgment-debtor.

Aggrieved by the order, the judgment-debtor is before this Court.

The Court had to decide whether the direction for dismantling the structures raised by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor is liable to be set aside on the ground that the provisions quoted does not squarely attract for granting such a relief.

The Court referred to Baliram Vs. Raghunath, 2020 SCC Online Bom 2013, where it was held that section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can always be said to be an ancillary provision, enacted for the purpose of giving full effect to the decree for specific performance.

Drawing strength from this, the Court upheld removal of illegal structures from the sit scheduled property and dismisses the revision petition.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Tel) 60 

Click here to read/download the judgment