SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Bom) 255

Bombay High Court
B. R. Gavai
KISAN SHRIPAT PATIL -Appeallant
Versus
RAGHO VEDU PATIL -RESPONDENTS
W. P. 1920 Of 2005
Decided On: 02/27/2007

Advocates Appeared:
C.R.DESHPANDE, V.A.Nimbalkar

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted as an ancillary relief to specific performance of contract, as per the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Headnote:

Specific Relief Act - Execution of Sale Deed - Section 22, Section 28(3) - The court allowed the application for execution of the sale deed, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the relief of possession could not be granted without specific claim. The court relied on the judgment of Babulal vs. Hajarilal Kishorilal and others, AIR 1982 SC 818 and interpreted the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act to justify the grant of possession as an ancillary relief to specific performance of contract.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract after the defendant failed to execute a sale deed for the suit land. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the execution of the sale deed and payment of a sum. The defendant objected to the execution proceedings, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the relief of possession is an incidental or ancillary relief to the main relief of specific performance of contract, and the executing court is competent to grant such relief. The court relied on the judgment of Babulal vs. Hajarilal Kishorilal and others, AIR 1982 SC 818 to support its finding.

Issues: The main issue was whether the executing court had jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession in the execution proceedings for specific performance of contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief of possession is permissible as an ancillary relief to specific performance of contract, based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act and section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the executing court's order was not without merit and declined to grant a stay on the order.

( 1 ) BY way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6th November, 2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil judge Senior Division, Dhule below Exhibit 1 in Regular Darkhast No. 275/2001, thereby allowing the application of the present respondent for execution of the decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 13/1992.

( 2 ) THE parties hereinafter would be referred as plaintiff/respondent and defendant/petitioner. It appears that the plaintiff/respondent had entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 16th December, 1985 for purchase of suit land admeasuring 1 Hectare 31 Ars. situated at village Arvi in block No. 4. The defendant/petitioner failed to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, issued notice to the defendants. However, on failure to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff/respondent filed Special Civil Suit No. 13/1992 for specific performance of contract. The said suit came to be decreed on 10th December, 1996. Vide the decree in the said suit, the learned trial Court had directed appointment of commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the decreeholder in respect of the suit property. The decreeholder was also directed to pay an amount of rs. 10,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE said judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court came to be challenged before the District Court. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court and as such, the judgment of the trial Court has achieved finality.

( 4 ) SINCE the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff/respondent filed a Regular Darkhast for execution of the sale deed. In the said proceeding, the plaintiff claimed a relief of getting the sale deed executed and for an order confirming his possession or in the alternative delivery of possession. The said execution proceedings were objected by the defendants- judgment debtors. All the allegations in the darkhast were denied by the defendants. The learned executing Court vide order dated 6th November, 2004 allowed the application for execution as prayed. Hence, this petition has been filed.

( 5 ) SHRI Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned executing Court is without jurisdiction. He submits that in view of section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, a relief of possession could not be granted unless it is claimed for. He submits that though the Court has power to grant amendment for claiming such a relief, unless such a relief is claimed, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant such a relief. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Adcon Electronics vs. Daulat, reported in 2001 (4) Mh.. (S. C.) 469 = 2001 AIR SCW 3534.

( 6 ) HE further submits that the plaintiff is adopting practice of aprobate and reprobate. He submits that, whereas an earlier suit came to be filed by him bearing R. C. S. No. 238/1990 for a relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants (present petitioners) from interfering with his possession. He has also now sought a relief of claiming possession. He submits that the suit of the plaintiff. e. R. C. S. No. 238/1990 for injunction has been dismissed and an appeal preferred there against has also been dismissed and has achieved finality. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the executing Court suffers from the vice of jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) PER contra, Shri Nimbalkar, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the relief of possession is an incidental or ancillary relief to the main relief of specific performance of contract and the executing Court would always be competent to grant an ancillary relief of possession while executing the decree for specific performance. He relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Babulal vs. Hajarilal Kishorilal and others, AIR 1982 SC 818.

( 8 ) SECTION 22 of the Specific Relief Act, reads thus :-

"22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top