HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Sri Kandarpa Narayan Paul - Appellant
Versus
Sri Sudip Datta - Respondent
CRP No. 11 of 2023
Decided On : 04-01-2024
Correction - Specific Performance - CPC Sections 151, 152; Specific Relief Act Section 22 - The court interpreted Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC to allow for corrections in decrees, emphasizing that relief of possession can be ancillary to specific performance, thus influencing the decision to allow the amendment for possession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought correction of a decree for specific performance to include delivery of possession of land, which was not granted by the trial court despite being claimed. The trial court had decreed the suit without contest as the defendant did not appear.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in not granting the ancillary relief of possession, which is inherent in a decree for specific performance. The court emphasized that such relief can be claimed at any stage, including execution.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's request for correction of the decree to include delivery of possession of the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the relief of possession is ancillary to a decree for specific performance and can be claimed at any stage, including execution, thus allowing the amendment to the decree.
Result: The revision petition is allowed, and the matter is remitted to the trial court for correction of the decree.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
1. Proof of notice through paper publication has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 12.12.2023. The date of appearance of the respondent was 13.12.2023 but the respondent has not entered appearance despite valid service of notice.
Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khowai in case No. Title Suit 04 of 2020 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for correction of the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2022.
3. The plaintiff/petitioner had preferred T.S. No.04 of 2020 for the following reliefs:
"(i) Pass a decree directing the defendant to perform her part of obligation by executing the registration of the sale deed for the land, mentioned in the Schedule below.
(ii) In the event of non-compliance of the decree by the defendant, the Ld. Court would be pleased to execute the registration of the sale deed so presented in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant.
(iii) The Ld. Court would be pleased to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within the period to be fixed by the Ld. Court and on the failure of the defendant, to deliver the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff through the process of Court.
(iv) Pass a decree for costs of the proceeding.
(v) Pass any other Decree/Order as may be deemed fit and proper for fair ends of justice."
4. The suit land appertains to Khatian No.4030, comprised in R.S. Plot No.6038/9098 measuring 0.005 acre according to the revenue record of Bastu (Nal) class of land as per the boundary described in the schedule. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:
"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?
(ii) Whether the defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the suit land described in schedule of the plaint in exchange of total sale consideration of Rs.4,000,00/- (Rupees four lakhs) only?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendant to perform his part of obligation by executing the registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint after taking balance consideration money from the plaintiff?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs including cost of the proceedings and if so, up to what extent?"
All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff.
5. The suit was decreed without contest as the defendant did not appear. The operative part of the judgment was couched in the following terms:
"As a corollary to the discussion and decision made on all the foregoing issues I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is successful in proving that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for selling the suit land described in schedule of the plaint in exchange of total sale consideration of Rs.4,000,00/- (Rupees four lakhs) only. The plaintiff is also successful to prove that he is entitled to a decree directing the defendant to perform his part of obligation by executing the registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint after taking balance consideration money from the plaintiff.
ORDER
In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree directing the defendant to perform his part of obligation by executing the registration of the sale deed in respect of the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint after taking balance consideration money from the plaintiff.
Thus, the case is disposed of without contest.
Prepare a decree accordingly and place before me for my signature within 15 days
The court established that relief of possession in specific performance cases can be claimed at any stage, including execution, and is not limited to the original decree.
The decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, making separate requests for possession unnecessary unless specific circumstances require it.
(1) In suit for specific performance, possession is inherent in such suit – Relief of possession is ancillary to decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed.(2) Procedural la....
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....
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
The court retains jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession under a decree for specific performance, and such applications can be filed within the same suit instead of requiring separate executio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.