Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Birma Devi & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Subhash & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition No. 29397 of 2024 (@ SLP(C.) Diary No(s). 52303 of 2024)
Decided On : 06-12-2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
A decree for specific performance inherently implies a right to possession, even if not explicitly stated in the decree. The executing court is obligated to ensure that this right is upheld and that possession is granted to the decree-holder (!) .
Relief for possession can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings, including during execution, to prevent multiplicity of actions. This means that even if the decree does not explicitly include a transfer of possession, the court can grant such relief if it is implied or necessary for effective enforcement (!) (!) .
When the possession of the property is exclusively with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance without explicit mention of possession may suffice, as the seller is bound to transfer possession upon being so required. However, if the property is jointly held or in possession of third parties, the plaintiff must specifically claim relief for possession to obtain effective enforcement (!) (!) .
The law permits amendments to the plaint at any stage, including during execution proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to include claims for possession if they were not originally specified. The term "proceedings" encompasses all stages of legal action, including execution (!) (!) .
The relief of possession may be granted by the executing court even when the decree for specific performance does not explicitly include it, provided the right to possession is implied or necessary for the complete enforcement of the decree (!) (!) .
The court's primary concern is to ensure that the decree's intent is fully executed, which may include granting possession to the decree-holder if the circumstances imply such a right, regardless of whether it was explicitly requested in the original decree (!) (!) .
The order of the court in this case emphasizes that the decree for specific performance carries an implied right to possession, and the executing court must act accordingly to fulfill this right, including issuing warrants for possession when appropriate (!) .
The petitioners, claiming to be subsequent purchasers, challenged the order of the High Court, but the court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that the law supports granting possession in cases where the decree implies such a right, even if not explicitly stated in the decree (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
ORDER
1. Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4982/2020, by which the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents – herein (original plaintiffs and decree holders) and set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bansur, District Alwar (Rajasthan) in Execution No.06/2018.
4. The facts of this case in brief are that the petitioners– herein claim to be the subsequent purchasers of the suit property. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale with the original defendants. The plaintiffs have succeeded in the suit. The Trial Court passed a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs.
5. It appears that since the original defendant who had executed the agreement of sale is no longer interested in the matter as he seems to have sold the suit property to the petitioners – herein, there has been no further challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
6. However, in the execution proceedings, the executing court took the view that although there is a decree for specific performance yet the decree does not say anything as regards putting the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property.
7. In such circumstances, the executing court declined to handover the possession of the suit property to the respondents – herein.
8. The order passed by the executing court came to be challenged by the respondents – herein - decree holder.
9. The High Court vide order dated 11-7-2023 allowed the petition in the following terms:-
“14. Considering the view of the Hon'ble Courts in the cases referred to above, it is very safe to say that in the case of suit for specific performance even no decree for possession has been sought and the suit for specific performance is decreed, the Executing Court is under an obligation to see that the possession of the suit property as decreed is handed over to the decree-holder.
15. Taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case and the view of the Hon'ble Courts in the cases referred to above, this Court is of the view that the decree of specific performance and the resultant execution and registration of the sale deed at the instance of the Executing court in favour of the plaintiff-decree holder entailed an implied right of the plaintiff-decree holder to be in possession of the property so conveyed. Since such a right has been denied by the impugned order by the Executing Court failing to exercise its jurisdiction, this Court set asides the impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Executing court.
16. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Executing Court is set aside and the Executing court is directed to issue a warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff - decree holder.
17. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.”
10. The petitioners – herein who claim to be the subsequent purchasers of the suit property seek to challenge the order of the High Court in this petition.
11. We have heard Mr. Jasbir Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
12. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted.
13. The position of law on the issue has been settled by this Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal reported in (1982) 1 SCC 525 wherein the Court while elaborating on Section 22 of the Specific
AI
A decree for specific performance implies an entitlement to possession, even if not explicitly stated, and the executing court must ensure this right is upheld.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted without being specifically claimed in a suit for specific performance, as per Section 22(2) of the Spe....
(1) In suit for specific performance, possession is inherent in such suit – Relief of possession is ancillary to decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed.(2) Procedural la....
The decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, making separate requests for possession unnecessary unless specific circumstances require it.
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
