The main legal point established is that the relief for possession is inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale, and the executing court has the authority to grant possession even without a formal order of amendment.

S. N. Jha, J.-It is sometimes said that the real troubles of -a decree-holder begins after the decree is passed. The instant case is an apt example of the woes of a decree-holder. In an execution proceeding arising out of a decree for specific performance of contract of sale, the judgment-debtor filed a petition to refuse the prayer for delivery of possession which has been rejected by the court below giving rise to this revision.

2. It is an admitted position that sale deed with respect to plots of land mentioned in the decree has been executed by the court. However, while levying execution of the decree for delivery of possession, the decree-holder mentioned different plots in the execution petition. An application, in the circumstance, was filed by the decree-holder to amend the execution petition in order to rectify the mistake in conformity with the decree, which was rejected on 1.9.1983. The decree-holder came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 1531 of 1983 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.4.1984. The plea of the petitioner in the court below as also in this Court is primarily founded on the aforementioned orders rejecting the player for amendment. It is contended that the court has no jurisdiction to effect delivery of possession of the lands which are not subject matter of the execution proceeding. The court below has held that the plots of lands mentioned in the sale deed executed by the court concerned are the same as in the deed of Mahadanama (agreement to sell). It has also held that the amendment sought by the decree-holder earlier was redundant, in as much as the delivery of possession of the lands in question can be asked for at any stage of the proceeding. In this Court, Mr. Shivakirti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the prayer for delivery of possession of the lands is barred by principle of res judicata. The question as to whether the executing court has got the power to deliver possession of the lands notwithstanding absence of any decree to that effect is well settled. The question, however, that arises for consideration is whether such a relief can be granted, once a prayer for amendment of the execution petition to that effect has been rejected by the executing court.

3. Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act contains different provisions relating to the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller. Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) provides that the seller is bound to give, on being so required the buyer, or such person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature admits. In Atal Behary Acharya vs. Barada Prasad Banerji (AIR 1931 Patna 179) a Division Bench of this Court held that a contract for sale includes not only the execution of the necessary document but also putting the vendee in possession of the property. Therefore, if there is an omission in the plaint or in the decree about possession the executing Court is not debarred from granting the plaintiff the possession of the property, being incidental to the relief to which a plaintiff is entitled in execution of a decree for specific performance arising out of a contract for sale. In Sri Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo & another v. Girdhari Lal Sanda (AIR 1957 Patna 701) this Court again reiterated the view that the relief of possession is inherent in a relief for specific performance of contract, and the Court executing a decree for specific performance of contract can grant possession of the property to decree holder even though the decree did not provide for delivery of possession. In Kartik Chandra Pal vs. Dibakar Bhattacharjee (AIR 1952 Calcutta 362) it was stated that a sale of a property after payment of the consideration and upon the execution of the deed of sale pre-supposes and requires the vendor to put the purchaser in possession of the property. It cannot be suggested that when a party comes to Court for the specific performance of a contract he is to be satisfied with