IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 7069 of 2025 SMT TARA BAIL DIED THROUGH LRS RAHUL AND OTHERS Versus GANGA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Madhur Bhargava - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of th India has been filed against order dated 28/11/2025 passed by VI District Judge, Guna in execution case No. Ex./27-A/2023.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that a decree for Specific Performance of Contract was passed, and it was directed that plaintiff/respondent No.1 shall be entitled to get the sale-deed executed after depositing the remaining consideration amount. It was also directed that in case if the sale-deed is not executed by defendant/petitioner, then the sale- deed can be executed through the Court. It is submitted that now, respondent has prayed for possession. Since, no decree for delivery of possession has been passed, therefore, application should have been rejected. However, the executing Court by order dated 28/11/2025 has directed for issuance of possession warrant.

3. Challenging the order passed by the executing Court, it is submitted that since no decree for delivery of possession was granted, therefore, the possession warrant should not have been issued.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The only question for consideration is as to whether the decree for possession is also required in a case where decree for specific performance of contract has been granted or not?

6. The Supreme Court in the case Birma Devi and Others Vs. Subhash and Another decided on 06/12/2024 in SLP No.29397/2024 has held as under:-

12. The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted.

13. The position of law on the issue has been settled by this Court in the case of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal reported in (1982) 1 SCC 525 wherein the Court while elaborating on Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 laid down the law for the following two situations that may arise:

a. First, in cases where the possession of the suit property is exclusively with the contracting party, then a decree for specific performance simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree holder. This, the Court held, was in consonance with Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which binds the seller, on being so required, to transfer to the buyer or such other person as he directs, such possession of the property as its nature admits.

b. Secondly, in cases where the relief of possession cannot be effectively granted to the decree-holder without specifically claiming relief for possession, for instance, in cases where the property agreed to be conveyed is jointly held by the defendant with other persons, or cases where after the contract the property has passed in possession of a third person, then the plaintiff, in order to obtain complete and effective relief, must claim the relief of transfer of possession over the property defendant along with the relief of partition, etc., if required.

14. For the second category of cases, the Court observed that Section 22, which was introduced by the legislature to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, allows the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding. The Court further held that the expression “any stage of the proceeding” includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court. The relevant paragraphs from the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow:

“13. The expression in sub-section (1) of Section 22 “in an app