1. The short question in this appeal by the judgment-debtor is whether the courts below were wrong in allowing the respondent-decree holder's prayer for possession of property in execution of the decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, when the decree did not give any express relief of delivery of possession. The appellant had contended that as the plaint did not ask for such a relief and the decree bad not granted it, the execution court had no jurisdiction to order delivery of possession and it could only refer the respondent to a fresh suit for possession on the strength of the sale deed executed by the court in his favour in execution of the decree. This contention failed before the courts below

2. Counsel for the appellant argued that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the execution court to deliver possession of the property in the absence of an enabling provision in the decree, even though the respondent has now become owner of the property and has thereby obtained a right to secure possession on the strength of his title. Relying upon Brijmohan v. Chandrabhagabai, AIR. 1948 Nagpur 406, counsel maintained that this has always been the law and that i