1982 (1) TMI 206 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Possession Order Under Specific Relief Act

Babu Lal Versus Hazari Lal Klshori Lal & Ors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's order granting possession to the decree-holders. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Executability of the decree without a specific relief for possession.2. Requirement of permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.3. Inclusion of vendors as parties in the execution application.Detailed Analysis:1. Executability of the Decree Without a Specific Relief for Possession:The petitioner contended that the decree was inexecutable as the decree-holders did not claim a relief for possession in the suit itself, thus there was no decree for possession. The petitioner argued that the High Court acted in violation of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act by granting relief of possession at the execution stage without an amendment of the plaint.The Court noted that Section 22 enacts a rule of pleading to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, allowing the plaintiff to claim possession in a suit for specific performance. The proviso to Section 22(2) allows amendment at any stage of the proceedings, including execution. The Court emphasized that the relief of possession is inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale, and the amendment of the plaint could be allowed even during execution proceedings.The Court referred to various precedents, including the Allahabad High Court's decision in *Hakim Enayat Ullah v. Khalil Ullah Khan* and the Calcutta High Court's decision in *Kartik Chandra Pal v. Dibakar Bhattacharjee*, which supported the view that a decree for specific performance includes the relief of possession. The Court also cited Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, which mandates the seller to deliver possession upon execution of the sale deed.The Court concluded that the High Court's omission to allow an amendment in the plaint was not fatal, and the execution court had jurisdiction to allow the amendment. The petitioner's objection was deemed hyper-technical, and the Court upheld the High Court's order granting possession.2. Requirement of Permission Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act:The petitioner argued that the execution application was not maintainable without obtaining permission under Sections 26 and 27 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The execution court overruled this objection, and the High Court affirmed the decision.The Court did not find merit in this objection, as the primary issue was the enforceability of the decree for specific performance and possession, which was not contingent upon the Urban Land Ceiling Act's permissions at the execution stage.3. Inclusion of Vendors as Parties in the Execution Application:The petitioner contended that the vendors were not originally impleaded as parties in the execution application, making it non-maintainable. The execution court directed the execution of the sale deed but refused the relief of possession, suggesting a separate suit for possession. The High Court modified the order, granting possession to the decree-holders.The Court held that the High Court's decree included the petitioner and the vendors, making them judgment debtors. The relief of possession was inherent in the decree for specific performance, and the execution court had jurisdiction to grant possession. The Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not impede the substantive rights of the decree-holders.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's order granting possession to the decree-holders. The Court emphasized the purpose of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete relief to the decree-holders. The procedural objections raised by the petitioner were deemed hyper-technical, and the Court affirmed the High Court's just and equitable order.