P ANNAMALAI Vs. PERIATHAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order passed in E. P. No. 21 of 1983 in Award No. 23 of 1982 on the file of the additional Subordinate Judge of Kancheepuram. The petitioner in that E. P. has come forward with this petition.

(2.) THE respondent is the father of the petitioner herein. Dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent which culminated in referring the matter for arbitration as early as on 29. 5. 1982. In and by the arbitration award, the petitioner herein has to get, apart from door No. 69, Pallikudathan Mudali Street, also door No. l83-A shop situated at Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram along with a sum of Rs. 50 ,000 /- payable by the respondent herein. THE respondent herein, as submitted by Mr. R. Krishna-moorthy, learned Advocate General, deposited the sum of Rs. 50 ,000 /- into the Court and filed arbitration O. P. No. 23 of 1982 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kancheepuram praying to pass a decree on the basis of the award filed along with that petition and to award the cost of the said O. P. In pursuance of this petition filed by the respondent, the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram passed a decree on 31. 3. 1983 stating that the petitioner herein has to get as his share door no. 183-A shop Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram and also a sum of Rs. 50,000/- deposited into the Court by the respondent herein. THE decree further states that the petitioner has to get release from the respondent herein in respect of all other properties including the business share belonging to the respondent herein. THE decree further, states, apart from other things, that the arbitration award is also attached to the decree.

(3.) MR. M. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this court in Poon Cholai Mudaliar v. Chockalingam mudaliar, (1974) T. L. N. J. 13 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court dealing with a suit for specific performance had occasion to consider as to whether the decreeholder is entitled to claim possession in the execution proceedings. In that context, the learned Judge held that the relief of possession is inherent in the relief of specific performance, for without delivery of possession of the properties, the performance of the contract for sale would be incomplete. The learned Judge further held that specific performance of contract of sale does not merely mean execution of the sale deed. Mere execution of sale deed without putting the property conveyed in the possession of the vendee would be meaningless.