The decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, making separate requests for possession unnecessary unless specific circumstances require it.

JUDGMENT

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J. - Heard Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.) and Sri M. Rahul, learned counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder (D.Hr.).

2. The present civil revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") is filed by the defendants/J.Drs. against the plaintiff/D.Hr. challenging the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dtd. 13/6/2023 passed in E.A.No.44 of 2015 in E.P.No.51 of 2012 for execution of the decree dtd. 7/2/2011 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2001.

3. The plaintiff/D.Hr. filed O.S.No.24 of 2001 against the defendants/J.Drs. for specific performance of contract which was decreed on 7/2/2011 for the plaint schedule properties.

4. In execution of that decree in E.P.No.51 of 2012, the Execution Court executed the sale deed on 23/2/2015 on behalf of the defendants/J.Drs and the same was also registered.

5. The D.Hr. filed E.A.No.44 of 2015 for delivery of possession of the E.P.schedule property basing on the registered sale deed. This application was filed mentioning under Order XXI Rule 95 CPC.

6. The defendants/J.Drs. filed objections taking the plea that the possession could not be delivered as the decree was only for specific performance of contract and there was no decree for delivery of possession.

7. Another objection was taken that in another suit O.S.No.736 of 2004, for money decree, in execution of the decree passed therein E.P.No.54 of 2010 was filed by the D.Hr. for sale of Item Nos. 1 to 5 therein, upon which, direction was issued by the Execution Court for sale of item-1 of the E.P. schedule property, against which the J.Dr. filed CRP No.2033 of 2014 in which on stay application the further proceedings in E.P.No.54 of 2010 were stayed by this Court on 31/10/2014 subject to the conditions imposed and that order is still continuing.

8. By filing additional counter affidavit, the J.Drs. raised another objection that the E.A.No.44 of 2015 was not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC, which, as per the objection ought to have been filed under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC.

9. The Execution Court framed the following point for determination:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled to order for deliver of the E.P. schedule mentioned properties to the petitioner/D.Hr, as prayed for?"

10. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor observed that in a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, specific prayer for delivery of possession is not necessary. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents/J.Drs. had no stand. The petitioner/D.Hr. was entitled to order for delivery of possession of E.P. schedule property as prayed for.

11. Consequently, the E.A.No.44 of 2015 was allowed and warrant of delivery to deliver the E.P.schedule property to the petitioner/D.Hr. based on the registered sale deed dtd. 23/2/2015, was issued.

12. Sri S. Lakshmianrayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors, raised the following submissions:

(i) The decree was only for specific performance of the contract. It was not a decree for delivery of possession. Consequently, the application for delivery of possession was not maintainable. The decree could not be executed for delivery of possession and the Court could not proceed beyond the terms of the decree.

(ii) The application of the decree holder for delivery of possession was not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. In his submission, Rule 95 deals with delivery of property sold, in execution of decree, to the purchaser in Court auction sale in occupancy of the J.Dr. But, here it i