ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. versus DAULAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 12-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
DAULAT AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Letters Patent of High Court of Bombay-Clause {2-Agreemem to 
sell-Suit simpliciter for specific pe1fo11nance-No other relief including 
possession claimed-Nature of suit-Whether it amounts to suit for land-
Held, suit.for land is one in which relief claimed relates to adjudication of title 
C 
or delivery of possession of land or immovable property-Under the facts, 
held, it is not suit for land-Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 22. 
Words. and Phrases-'Suit for land-Meaning of 
Appellant executed an agreement and memorandum to sell the suit 
property to respondents. Dispute arose between the parties regarding 
performance of the said agreement and respondents filed a suit in the High 
Court for declaration that the said agreement and memorandum were 
subsisting and binding and all'o for a decree for its specific performance. 
The suit was filed with the leave of the court under clause 12 of the Letters 
Patent of the High,Court of Judicature of Presidency of Bombay. Single 
Judge granted leave. Appellant-defendant took out chamber summons for 
revocation of leave granted to respondent-plaintiffs which was dismissed 
by the Single Judge on the ground that suits for specific performance, even 
though they may relate to land, were not suits for lands. On appeal Division 
Bench upheld the order of the Single Judge holding that suit for specific 
performance of an agreement for sale was not a "suit for land". Aggrieved 
by the judgment of Division Bench, defendant has filed the present appeal . 
. Appellant contended that suit for specific performance of agreement 
D 
E 
F 
is a "suit for land" in view of specific stipulation in the agreement that 
defendant would hand over possession of the suit property on the execution 
G 
of the sale deed; and that suit is for acquisition of title to land and is a "suit 
for land". 
Respondent contended that suit for specific performance simpliciter 
in the absence of an explicit prayer for delivery of possession of suit 
property cannot be treated as a "suit for land" in view of sub-section (2) of 
H 
29 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l. A "suit for land" is a suit in which the relief claime<i 
relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. 
B 
Whether a suit is a "suit for land" or not has to be determined on the 
averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where 
the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or 
delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a "suit 
for land". [35-G-H] 
c 
D 
E 
Mis. Moo(ii Jaitha and Co. v. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills 
Co. Ltd., AIR (37) (1950) Federal Court 83; His Highness Shrimant Maharaj 
Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore v. Dadabhai Cursetji Ashbumer, (1890) 14 
I.L.R. Bombay 353; Debendra Nath Chowdhary v. Southern Bank Ltd., AIR 
(1960) Calcutta 626 referred to. 
2.1. In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable 
property containing stipulation that on execution of the sale deed the 
possession of the·immovable property will be handed over to the purchaser, 
it is implied that delivery of possession of the immovable property is part 
of the decree of specific performance of contract. But in this connection it 
is necessary to refer to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sub-
section (1) of Section 22 is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit for 
specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) 
and (b) thereof. Clause (a) contains reliefs of possession and partition and 
separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. 
F 
The mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 22 is that no relief under clauses 
(a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has 
been specifically claimed. In its true sense a suit simpliciter for specific 
performance of contract for sale of land is a suit for enforcement of terms 
of contract. The title to the land as such is not the subject-matter of the 
G 
suit. Thus it follows that no court can grant the relief of possession of land 
or other immovable property, subject matter of the agreement for sale in 
regard to which specific performance is claimed, un

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.