The Andhra Pradesh High court held in its recent judgement in the case named K.V. Srinivasulu Naidu and 3 others vs. V. Bhaskar that the decree holder for the specific performance of contract of sale has inherent relief of delivery of possession if the defendant is in exclusive possession of the property.
In the particular case the counsel of the judgement debtor filed a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the order of the Court regarding the execution of the delivery of possession of the property to the decree holder passed in 2001. The court held the execution of the sale deed and the registration.
The defendant’s counsel filed a revision petition objecting the delivery of possession on certain grounds. He submitted that the decree was only for the performance of the specific contract relying on section 22 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 states specific mentioning of delivery of possession in the decree of specific performance, second the application was not maintainable under the Order 21 Rule 95 of CPC. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the order and registry by the executive court is appropriate as it is implied that the decree of specific performance includes the decree of delivery of possession, mere submission of decision under wrong rule do not curtail the power of the executive court to pass the decree and it can be changed to Order 21 Rule 31 and 35 of CPC and there is liability on seller under Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act to also deliver possession in decree of specific performance of contract.
The questions which aroused in the court were whether the Executive court acted within its jurisdiction upholding the said decision and whether the judgement under challenges deserves interference on the grounds of challenge raised in the petition.
The court observed that the specific relief can be granted under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ‘in an appropriate case.’ Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari relied on the decision held in Babulal vs. M/S. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, that the decree of specific performance do not require any separate order for the delivery of possession of property in the contract of sale until the possession of the said property is with any other person or the third party or the said property is of partition and in the particular case there was neither the doubt of third party possession nor partition. Consequently, the decree holder was not required to the claim of possession in the filed petition of specific performance.
Thus the civil revision was dismissed as the decision held by the Execution court in its judgement was correct and adequate.
Counsel for Petitioners: S Lakshminarayana Reddy
Counsel for Respondents: M Rahul
Written by Shubhi Yadav , College name: UILS, Panjab University, Semester: 3rd, intern under Legal Vidhiya
