Specific performance and possession: execution can include delivery of possession even without an express prayer in the plaint.

In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, possession may be delivered in execution as ancillary relief even where the plaint and decree contain no express prayer for possession. The Court treated Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as a rule of pleading intended to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and held that its proviso allows amendment at any stage, so the requirement is directory rather than mandatory. Where the vendor is contractually bound to deliver possession, and the relief flows from the decree, execution for possession is maintainable; only cases involving joint property or relief against third parties require specific pleading.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property, possession can be delivered in execution of the decree even when no specific prayer for possession was made in the plaint or granted in the decree; and whether the requirement in Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: Section 22 was introduced as a rule of pleading to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to enable complete relief in a suit for specific performance. The expression "in an appropriate case" shows that a prayer for possession is not invariably required in every suit for specific performance. Where the defendant-vendor is bound under the contract and under Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to deliver possession, the relief of possession is ancillary to and flows from the decree for specific performance. The proviso to Section 22(2) permits amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceeding, which includes execution, and therefore the provision is directory and not a bar to executing the decree for possession. Only in cases where effective relief cannot be granted without a specific claim, such as joint property or relief against third parties, must possession be specifically pleaded.

Conclusion: The decree-holder was entitled to delivery of possession in execution of the specific performance decree, and the absence of an express prayer or decree for possession did not defeat that entitlement.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unsustainable, and the execution for delivery of possession was maintainable. The decree-holder's right to possession under the sale deed and decree was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property, possession may be granted and executed as an ancillary and inherent relief unless the nature of the relief requires a specific pleading, and Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is directory because its proviso permits amendment at any stage of the proceeding.

---