A prayer for possession is not always necessary in a suit for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property, as the relief for possession may be inherent in the relief for specific performance.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal at the instance of the judgment-debtor directed against an order dated July 9, 1982, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, dismissing an objection under Section 47 of the C. P. C. read with Order 21, Rule 34 of the said Code. Since no appeal lies against an order dismissing an objection under Section 47 of the Code, the appellant had earlier filed an application in revision on notice to the decree-holder, being C. O. 2242 of 1982 which is being heard along with the appeal. Since the decree-holder had already entered appearance we admit the appeal, dispense with service of the notice of appeal and we proceed to dispose of both the appeal and the revisional application by this judgment of ours.

( 2 ) ON April 28, 1977 (?), the present appellant entered into an agreement with the pre-sent respondent to sell the suit property which is a demarcated part of premises No. 2, Andul Raj Road, Calcutta, and which had been allotted to the share of the appellant's father under a partition decree passed on an award in Title Suit No. 16 of 1944. The respondent instituted Title Suit No. 86 of 1976 for specific performance of that agreement and for delivery of possession of the suit property. That suit was decreed on Jan. 29, 1980, by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore, on the following terms :"that the suit be and the same is decreed on contest with costs. The defendant is directed to execute a deed of conveyance for the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and to sell the suit property to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement marked Ext. 2. The defendant is also directed to repay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 17,073. 42 the benefit which the defendant received for the said property. The defendant is directed to perform his part of the contract by executing a deed of sale and by making repayment of the excess amount as ordered above within 3 months of the decree. In default, the plaintiff shall be entitled to enforce the agreement and obtain the deed and also recover excess amount of Rs. 17,073. 42 from him through Court as per law. "

( 3 ) THE appellant having failed to execute the conveyance and perform the contract amicably, the respondent put that decree into execution under Order 21, Rule 34 of the Code. A draft conveyance having been submitted before the executing Court the respondent prayed for execution of the document as per draft conveyance by the defendant, failing compliance, execution and registration by the Court on behalf of the judgment-debtor and thereafter delivery of possession through process of Court and also for realisation of the decretal dues and costs.

( 4 ) THE appellant raised an objection under Section 47 of the Code read with Order 21, Rule 34 thereof. The substantial objection that was pressed before the executing Court was to the effect that when the Court passing the decree had not granted the relief for possession expressly prayed for in the plaint, the executing Court cannot sustain the prayer for possession in execution of such a decree. Reliance was placed on the provision of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, in support of such a contention. The learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order having overruled the said objection, the judgment-debtor has preferred the present appeal and the revisional application.

( 5 ) IN this appeal and the revisional application Mr. Dasgupta appearing on behalf of the judgment-debtor-appellant has raised two points, one of which was not raised in the Court below. He has first contended that in the present case the decree-holder/ respondent in his suit expressly prayed for two reliefs, namely, specific performance of the agreement for sale and delivery of possession after such specific performance but the Court thought fit to grant only one of the said reliefs prayed for, namely, the specific performance of the agreement for sale but not the other, namely, delivery of posses