The Supreme Court Has Ruled That A Specific Performance Decree For A Sale Agreement Can Be Executed Without Requiring Separate Possession Relief
Last Updated on December 11, 2024 by Arti Kumari
In order to assert possession of suit property, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the decree-holder requesting specific performance of a sale agreement would not have to submit a separate application under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1962 (“SRA”).
The civil appeal filed by the subsequent purchasers of the suit property against the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff was dismissed by the bench consisting of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan. The bench noted that the executing court erred in denying the plaintiff possessory rights when a specific performance suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Whether the executing court could grant possession if a decree just directs particular performance without specifically stating possession of the property was the brief question that fell for the Court’s attention.
The court’s affirmative response said that the decree-holder of an action for specific performance of a sale agreement does not have to file a suit under Section 22 of the Act to get possession of the suit property.
The legal position that follows from the aforementioned observation is that Section 22 of the Act does not require a separate claim for relief of possession when the transfer of property’s possession is implicit upon execution of the sale deed.
In order to make it clear that the relief of possession should only be sought “in appropriate cases,” where the decree-holder cannot be awarded the relief of possession without specifically requesting it, the Court cited Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Others (1982).
For example, if the defendant holds the property that was agreed to be conveyed jointly with other people, or if the property has passed into the possession of a third party after the contract, the plaintiff must seek the relief of transfer of possession over the defendant’s property as well as the relief of partition, etc., if necessary, the Court stated in Babu Lal’s case in order to obtain full and effective relief.
The same bench recently noted that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“SRA”) does not require a separate litigation to seek possession of immovable property when that possession is conveyed implicitly upon execution of the sale deed.
Case Title: BIRMA DEVI & ORS. VERSUS SUBHASH & ANR.
