The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order that directed the executing court to hand over possession to the decree-holder, even though the decree for specific performance did not explicitly provide for possession. Referring to Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, the Court reiterated that relief for possession can be implied in specific performance decrees under appropriate circumstances, ensuring complete justice to the decree-holder.

1. Introduction and Procedural History

• Para 1–3:
  • Case Title: Birma Devi & Ors. vs. Subhash & Anr.
  • Proceedings: Petitioners sought special leave to challenge the High Court's order in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4982/2020.
  • Background: High Court had overturned an executing court’s refusal to grant possession to the decree-holder and directed issuance of a possession warrant.

2. Factual Background

• Para 4–5:
  • Case Facts: The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement against the original defendants.
  • Decree Passed: Trial Court decreed specific performance in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the original defendant subsequently sold the suit property to the petitioners (subsequent purchasers).
  • Execution Proceedings: The executing court refused to deliver possession to the decree-holder, citing the absence of a specific possession order in the decree.

3. High Court Ruling

• Para 6–9:
  • The High Court held that a decree for specific performance inherently implies a right to possession unless explicitly excluded.
  • Ordered the executing court to issue a possession warrant for the decree-holder.

4. Legal Question Before the Supreme Court

• Para 12:
  • Core Issue: Can possession be granted during execution of a decree for specific performance, where the decree does not expressly mention possession?

5. Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis

• Para 13–15:
  • Legal Framework Discussed:
    • Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 22): Allows inclusion of possession relief at any stage of proceedings, including execution.
    • Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 55): Seller is bound to deliver possession upon transfer.
  • Key Case Law:
    • Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982): Two categories of specific performance decrees:
      • Category 1: Where possession is with the contracting party; possession can be implied in the decree.
      • Category 2: Where possession is with a third party, explicit relief must be sought.
    • Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. (2024): Reiterated Babu Lal, stating that implied relief suffices where possession is with the contracting party.

6. Supreme Court’s Conclusion

• Para 16:
  • Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed.
  • Reasoning: The decree-holder had an implied right to possession, and the High Court’s direction was by established legal principles.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Specific Relief Act, 1963

   • Section 22: Allows amendment of plaint to seek possession at any stage, including execution.

2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882

   • Section 55(1): Obligates the seller to deliver possession upon the buyer’s request.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

   • Order 2 Rule 2: Relates to the joinder of reliefs in one suit.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Implied Right to Possession: A decree for a specific performance inherently includes an implied right to possession unless explicitly excluded, as per Babu Lal.
2. Execution Proceedings: Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act permits possession to be claimed even at the execution stage to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Subjects:

Civil Law, Specific Relief, Property Disputes, Execution of Decrees
Specific Performance, Possession Relief, Execution Proceedings, Transfer of Property, Implied Rights, Supreme Court Judgment