Paridhi Arya
Published on April 22, 2022 at 15:18 IST
The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian has ordered that Relief of Possession is not needed to Claim specifically as it is Ancillary to Decree of Specific performance under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act.
The Court observed “Sub-Section (2) cannot be said to be a Mandatory Provision as the power to Claim relief at any stage of the Proceeding makes sub-section (2) directory. Sub-section (2) is a matter of Procedure to avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings. The Procedural Laws are handmaid of Justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights.”
In this Case firstly person got Decree of execution of Sale Deed after that application was filed by Decree Holder for taking Possession of Property from Judgment Debtor which was allowed by Court.
Then it was contended by Judgment Debtor that as delivery of Possession was not granted in the Decree and Petition will not be Maintainable this was allowed by Court.
High Court in appeal held that under Section 22 of Specific Relief Act of 1963 decree for Possession need to be claimed without its Possession cannot be Ordered and Appellant should file suit for Possession separately.
This decision was challenged in Supreme Court where Bench that Relief of possession need not to be claimed specifically as it is Ancillary to the Decree of specific performance under Specific Relief Act 1877.
“The Defendant in terms of the agreement is bound to handover possession of the land agreed to be sold. The expression “at any stage of proceeding” is wide enough to allow the Plaintiffs to seek Relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed.”
“This Court in Babu Lal has explained the circumstances where relief of Possession may be necessary such as in a suit for partition or in a Case of separate Possession where the property conveyed is a Joint property.”
“In the suit for specific performance, the Possession is inherent in such suit, therefore, we find that the Decree-holders are in fact entitled to possession in pursuance of the sale deed executed in their favor.” observed by Bench.