Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SRIMATHY
Muthukumaran – Appellant
Versus
M.Rajendran – Respondent
ORDER :
S.Srimathy, J.
The present revision petition is filed by the defendant in the suit to set aside the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in E.P.No.2 of 2017 in O.S.No.45 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Court, Rameshwaram.
2. The suit was filed for specific performance. The plaintiff, the proposed purchaser and the defendant, owner of the property had entered into a sale agreement dated 14.08.1977. Since the defendant had not come forward to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff has issued suit notice, dated 24.07.1978. In spite of receipt of the notice, the defendant did not reply. After the said sale agreement, the 1st defendant had sold to the 2nd defendant. Hence, the 2nd defendant is arrayed as one of the parties and the said sale deed will not bind the plaintiff. Further, the 1st defendant at the time of enquiry, informed that the 2nd defendant had sold another portion to the 3rd defendant on 17.11.1981, hence, the 3rd defendant is also arrayed as one of the parties and the said sale will not bind the plaintiff. The defendant had filed a written statement denying the alleged sale contracts, dated 18.04.1971, 25.02.1973, 25.02.1973, 23.05.1977, 28.07.1977,
Possession is inherent in suits for specific performance; a separate prayer for possession is not necessary under the Specific Relief Act.
A decree for specific performance implies an entitlement to possession, even if not explicitly stated, and the executing court must ensure this right is upheld.
The decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, making separate requests for possession unnecessary unless specific circumstances require it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief of possession can be granted without being specifically claimed in a suit for specific performance, as per Section 22(2) of the Spe....
The Court emphasized the importance of triable issues and the respective claims and cause of action of the parties in determining the maintenance of the suit.
Court neither loses its jurisdiction after grant of decree for specific performance nor it becomes functus officio – If an ancillary or incidental relief is not granted, there would be no value to de....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
