Consequential possession in specific performance can be granted in execution even without a prior specific prayer or amendment.

Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act was treated as an enabling pleading rule meant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, so a separate prayer for possession was not invariably required where possession was consequential to specific performance. The proviso to section 22(2) was read broadly to permit amendment of the plaint at any stage, including execution, and section 28 of the Specific Relief Act supported continued court control over the decree. On that basis, the court held that possession could be granted in execution proceedings even though it had not been specifically claimed in the plaint, and a separate suit for possession was unnecessary.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, relief of possession can be granted at the execution stage even though it was not specifically claimed in the plaint, and whether the executing court can permit amendment of the plaint for that purpose.

Analysis: Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was treated as a rule of pleading intended to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. The expression "in an appropriate case" was held to show that a separate claim for possession is not always mandatory, because in some cases possession is inherent in the relief of specific performance itself. The proviso to sub-section (2) was construed broadly so that amendment of the plaint may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, including execution proceedings. The Court further noted that under section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the transferor is bound to deliver possession on sale, and section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 supports the continuing control of the court over the decree and the grant of consequential reliefs, including delivery of possession. A separate suit for possession was therefore unnecessary.

Conclusion: The objection that possession could not be granted in execution without a prior specific prayer or amendment of the plaint was rejected, and the relief of possession was held to be capable of being granted in the execution proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, the court may grant consequential possession in execution proceedings and may allow amendment of the plaint at that stage, because section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an enabling rule of pleading designed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and does not require a rigid, formalistic exclusion of possession where justice requires it.

---