Plaintiffs Can Amend Pleadings To Seek Possession Even At Execution Stage Under Section 22 Of Specific Relief Act: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act empowers a plaintiff to amend the plaint to include relief for possession, partition, or other ancillary claims at any stage of the legal proceedings, including the execution stage.
The Court emphasized that this provision aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete relief to the decree-holder.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed, "Section 22, which was introduced by the legislature to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, allows the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding. The Court further held that the expression “any stage of the proceeding” includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court."
The Court said, "The short question that falls for our consideration is whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted."
The dispute originated from a suit for specific performance filed by the decree holders based on an agreement to sell executed by the original owner. The trial court ruled in favor of the decree holders, passing a decree for specific performance. However, during execution proceedings, the subsequent purchasers—claiming ownership of the suit property—objected, arguing that the decree did not explicitly grant possession to the decree holders.
The executing Court declined to issue a possession warrant, citing the absence of an explicit decree for possession. Aggrieved, the decree holders challenged the order in the Rajasthan High Court.
The High Court, in its judgment dated July 11, 2023, set aside the executing court's order. It ruled that a decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, even if not explicitly stated, particularly when the original defendant has no competing possession claim. The High Court directed the executing court to issue a possession warrant in favor of the decree holders.
While dismissing the subsequent purchasers' petition, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the established legal principle from Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982), which clarified:
1. Implied Right to Possession: When exclusive possession is with the contracting party, a decree for specific performance implicitly carries the right to possession under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
2. Relief at Execution Stage: Plaintiffs may seek possession during execution proceedings if circumstances demand, as permitted under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act.
The Court noted that in the present case, possession of the suit property was a natural consequence of the decree for specific performance, and the High Court rightly recognized this principle. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the SLP.
Cause Title: Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr.
Click here to read/download the Order
