https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312964 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. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:14:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312964 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312964