( 1 ) SMT. Farooq Zamani Begum, the owner of the property in dispute entered into an agreement of sale with Smt. Qaisar jahan Begum, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 for Rs. 1,42,000/ -. Part payment was made and the sale deed was required to be executed within one month of the conclusion of the pending litigation in respect of the property in dispute. Instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Smt. Farooq Zamani Begum executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner Jafar Mian selling 1/4th share of the house in question. Consequently, a Suit No. 59 of 1988 was filed for the specific performance of the agreement. The said suit was decreed by a judgment dated 14-7-1992. An execution Case no. 9 of 1992 was filed and, in this execution proceeding, a sale deed was executed by the Court on 4-1-1994, which was ultimately registered on 13-5-1997.

( 2 ) THE decree-holder, respondent No. 1 filed a second execution application praying for the possession of the property in question. The petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser, filed an objection under S. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected by an order dated 18-1-2005 by the executing Court. The petitioner preferred a revision which was also dismissed by a judgment dated 31-5-2002. Consequently, the writ petition.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri M. A. Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Islam, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) THE sole point urged before this Court is, that the relief claimed by the decree-holder was outside the framework of the relief claimed by the plaintiff and, therefore, the prayer for the possession of the property could not be granted in view of S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, and that a separate suit for possession was required to be filed by the decree-holder. It was urged that the executing Court acted in flagrant violation of the provisions of S. 22 of the Specific relief Act in granting the relief for possession.

( 5 ) FOR facility, the provision of S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is quoted here-under : 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or (made by) him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. (2) No relief under Cl. (a) or Cl. (b) of subsection (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed : provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the Court to grant relief under Cl. (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under S. 21.

( 6 ) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that S. 22 of the Specific relief Act, 1963, enacts a rule of pleading. This section was introduced to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and, therefore, the plaintiff could also claim a decree for possession in a suit for specific performance, even though, the right to possession accrued only after the suit for specific performance was decreed.

( 7 ) THE Supreme Court in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal kishori Lal, AIR 1982 SC 818 : (1982 All LJ 818) has explained the provisions of S. 22 of the Specific Relief Act, and in particular the words "in an appropriate case" the Supreme Court held

"13. The expression in sub-section (2) of s. 22 in an appropriate case is very significant. The plaintiff may ask for the relief of possession or partit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document