Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Precedent on Delivery of Possession in Specific Performance of Contract of Sale

Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Precedent on Delivery of Possession in Specific Performance of Contract of Sale

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently addressed the question of whether a distinct claim for the delivery of possession needs to be explicitly included in a lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sales contract. In its interpretation of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Court concluded that the remedy for delivery of possession is inherent within a claim for the specific performance of a sales contract when the defendant holds exclusive possession of the property.

The individuals against whom the judgment was issued (Judgement Debtors) raised objections, asserting that possession could not be transferred because the decree exclusively pertained to the specific performance of the contract and did not include a decree for the delivery of possession.

The Execution Court ruled that in a lawsuit seeking specific performance of a sales agreement, a distinct request for the delivery of possession is not obligatory, and thus, the Decree Holder had the right to obtain an order for the delivery of possession of the scheduled property. The Judgment Debtors subsequently initiated the current civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to contest the Execution Court's decision.

The counsel representing the judgment debtor argued that given the nature of the decree, which solely pertained to the specific performance of the contract without including delivery of possession, the Execution Court was not authorized to go beyond the stipulated terms of the decree. In support of this argument, he referred to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which states that the court should not issue a decree for the delivery of possession in a lawsuit for specific performance unless there is an explicit request for such relief.

Conversely, the counsel representing the decree-holder argued that the delivery of possession, following a decree for specific performance of the contract, is implicitly included, even when a separate decree for possession is not expressly issued. It was contended that the seller bears a liability, as outlined in Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, to deliver possession as part of the decree for specific performance of the contract.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari analysed Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and his examination revealed that the plaintiff is permitted to seek relief related to possession or partition within a lawsuit for the specific performance of a contract involving the transfer of immovable property, but only in situations that are deemed appropriate by the court.

As a result, reliance was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Babu Lal v. M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982), which clarified that the phrase “in an appropriate case” in Section 22 signifies that it may not always be obligatory for the plaintiff to explicitly seek possession of the property since the relief for possession is inherently included in the relief for specific performance of a sales contract.

However, in cases where the property is jointly held by the defendant and others or when it is under the control of a third party, the plaintiff is then obligated to specifically plead for either partition or possession of the property. This principle was also affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Suluguru Vijaya v. Pulumati Manjula (2007), where similar circumstances were involved.

In the current case, Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari noted that it did not involve a scenario where the plaintiff was seeking possession from a third party not party to the sales agreement, nor did it concern a situation where partition was necessary to allocate the share of the Judgment Debtor. Given that the property was under the possession of the Judgment Debtor, who was also a party to the sales agreement, the decree for delivery of possession was deemed to be an inherent component of the decree for the specific performance of the contract. Consequently, the Plaintiff/Decree Holder was not obliged to explicitly request the relief of possession in the plaint, the Court held.

Moreover, concerning the incorrect reference to a provision in the application submitted for the delivery of possession, the Court ruled that the mere inclusion of an incorrect provision did not deprive the Execution Court of its authority to enforce the decree. The Execution Court possessed jurisdiction, as stipulated by the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), to execute the decree, including the delivery of possession.

Consequently, the civil revision was dismissed since the judgment of the Execution Court was found to be free from any legal or jurisdictional errors.