GYASA Vs. RISALO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant's suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of the land was decreed. The decree directed that the plaintiff shall deposit Rs. 4,000.00 in Court within two months whereafter the defendant shall execute the sale deed of the property in question in favour of the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff may get the salve done through Court. The decree holder deposited the amount in Court. As the judgment debtor failed to execute the requisite sale deed it was got executed through Court. In execution of the decree arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison, attachment of the judgment-debtor's entire property and possession over the property covered by the sale deed were claimed'. The judgment debtor filed objections and resisted her arrest and detention in civil prison and attachment of her property and also the prayer for delivery of possession. The execution Court accepted the objection that the decree holder was not entitled to possession over the property covered by the sale deed on the reasoning that since no relief for possession was claimed in the suit and the decree also did not direct delivery of possession, the decree-holder was not entitled to claim possession in view of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court also negatived the claim of the decree-holder for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison and attachment of her entire property. The decree- holder's appeal to the District Judge against the order of the execution Court upholding the objections of the judgment-debtor proved infructuous.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that in the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale no separate relief for possession was claimed. The decree also did not in express terms direct delivery of possession over the property in suit. The question for consideration is whether the decree-holder is entitled to possession in execution of the decree as it stands or Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act bars the relief of possession. The relevant part of Section 22 provides :-

(3.) THE principle that the relief for possession is inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale and that in execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract of sale the decree holder is entitled to possession over the property even if no such relief was specifically claimed in the suit or granted under the decree, was accepted by this Court in Arjun Singh v. Sahu Maharaj Narain, (AIR 1950 All 415). The Court observed :-