A decree for specific performance of a contract implicitly includes the right to possession of the property, and objections regarding the decree's executability must be raised collectively.

ORDER :

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.

1. Decree holder preferred this Civil Revision Petition under section 115 of CPC assailing the order dated 27.11.2017 of the execution court in E.A.No.213 of 2017 in E.P.No.154 of 2007 in O.S.No.132 of 1991 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

2. Respondent herein is one of the judgment debtors.

3. Sri S.Appadhara Reddy, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri P.Sravan Kumar appearing on behalf of Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent submitted arguments.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner cited

• RPA Vallimmal V. R.Palanichami Nadar, [(1997) 10 SCC 209]

• Manickam alias Thandapani V. Vasantha , 2022 LawSuit (SC) 519.

• Sarverunnisa Begum V. Syed Rafeeq , 2015 (4) ALD 225.

• K.Jayarajan V. Sambasivan, Order dated 01.02.2022 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

5. Learned counsel for respondent cited

• B.V.Patankar V. C.G.Sastry , AIR 1961 SC 272

• Adcon Electronics Private Limited V. Daulat , (2001) 7 SCC 698

6. The following facts and legal events are required to be noticed: -

An immovable property in an extent of Ac.3.57 cents which is agricultural land situated in R.S/73/7 in Patta No.199 in Mysannagudem Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal of West Godavari District was subject matter of an agreement for sale dated 07.06.1984. The intending purchaser filed O.S.No.132 of 1991 praying for specific performance of the agreement for sale as against the vendors who executed the agreement for sale. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur by a judgment dated 12.02.1998 granted the reliefs and directed defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff and granted time of three months for that. It further directed that in the event, the judgment debtors failed to comply with the decree directions, the decree holder was entitled to have the sale deed executed through process of court. Since in the suit, the purchaser contended that he obtained possession of the subject matter property under the agreement for sale and contended that the vendors/ defendants were disturbing his possession, the judgment and decree of the trial court further granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

7. The vendors did not comply with the decree directions and did not execute sale deed. In such circumstances, the decree holder filed E.P.No.14 of 2005 seeking execution of registered sale deed. The execution court called upon the judgment debtor and when they failed to turn up, it executed registered sale deed in favour of the decree holder. It is undisputed here that the sale deed which was pursuant to the decree did not advert to possession of the property though possession was asserted in the plaint by the purchaser. That had driven the decree holder to file E.P.No.154 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC praying for delivery of the possession of the property. Contest was raised by judgment debtors stating that the subject matter property was already sold under an agreement for sale dated 14.04.1980 and possession of the property was delivered to the agreement holder Sri P.Ramachandra Rao. Therefore, the decree was invalid and prayer for possession of the property could not be asked for. The rival submissions were fully considered and the learned Senior Civil Judge by an order dated 14.10.2008 negatived all the contentions raised by Judgment debtors and granted delivery of possession with a direction that the property should be delivered to decree holder by 30.10.2008. Despite such an order, the judgment debtors were raising all sorts of troubles and in such circumstances, decree holder filed E.A.No.547 of 2008 praying to grant police aid. The Execution court allowed the said application and granted police aid by its order dated 14.07.2017. At about the same time, Sri Ramachandra Rao who was, according to the defendants in the suit was, in possession of the property