The relief for possession is inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale and that, in execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale, the decree holder is entitled to possession over the property even if no such relief was specifically claimed in the suit or granted under the decree.

1. THE present revisional application is a typical example of the desperate effort of the judgment-debtor to ward off the execution of the decree till the bailiff knocks at the door.

2. THE case as made Out by the petitioner in the revisional application inter alia, is that the opposite party filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner being Title Suit No. 37 of 1973 in the Court of the learned Muhsif at Uluberia, Howrah, inter alia, on the allegation that there was an unregistered agreement for sale of the disputed land executed by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party on 18th June, 1973 for rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- was received by the petitioners, but he refused to accept the balance amount and to execute the necessary sale deed inspite of repeated tenders and demands. The suit has contested by the petitioner denying and disputing the plaintiff's allegations. Ultimately, however, the suit was decreed which decree was even affirmed up to this Hon'ble Court in second appeal. The opposite party put the said decree into execution, consequent to which. Title Execution Case No. 14 of 1976 was started,, and the petitioner filed objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said execution case which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 84 of 1983, in which it was contended inter alia, by the petitioner judgment-debtor that since the description of the suit property as made in the plaint was value and as there was so prayer for delivery of possession in the plaint, the decree for specific performance of contract passed against him was in executable. The learned, munsif, however, by his Order 66 dated 26th March, 1388 dismissed the said Misc. Case 84 of 1983 holding inter alia, that there was no merit in the said objection and the judgment-debtor was not only bound to executable the sale deed in question, he was also bound to put the decree holder into possession of the disputed property in terms of the decree as well, in view of the specific previsions of Section 55 (1) (f)of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner has challenged the said order of the learned Munsif in the present revisional application. It is contended by Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the description of the suit property as given in the plaint, was vague and not demarcated and as the decree-holder did not pray for recovery of possession, the decree for specific performance of contract passed against his client was in executable in view of the provisions of Section 22 (2) of the specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. MR. Dey, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, tries to support the impugned order contending inter alia, that the prayer for delivery of possession is not mandatory in a suit for Specific performance of contract and under Section 55 (1) (f) of the transfer of Properly Act with the execution of the deed of sale, the seller is bound to deliver possession of the property to the purchaser, and if it is not done, the Court can direct him to do so in execution of the decree for specific performance of contract passed against him after the deed was executed in terms of the said decree and the description of the suit property as given in the plaint is not vague. Several decisions have been cited at the bar, namely, AIR 1977 Allahabad 136; AIR 1981 Calcutta 79; AIR 1982 SC 818 and 1982 (2) CHN187.

4. SO far as the decision in the case of Gyasa Vs. Smt. Risalo (AIR 1977 Allahabad 156) is concerned, it has been held therein inter alia, that where exclusive possession is with the contracting party, a' decree for specific performance of the contract of sale simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree-holder. In order to satisfy, the decree against him, the judgment-debtor is bound, not only to execute the sale deed, but also to put the property in possession of the decree