BABU LAL versus HAZARI LAL KISHORI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 29-01-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·H 
94 
BABU LAL 
v. 
HAZA RI LAL KISH ORI LAL & ORS. 
January 29, 1982 
[A.P. SEN AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Ac.I, sections 22 and 28 read with Section 55 of the Transfer 
of Property Act, scope of-Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act enacts a rule of 
pleading in order to avoid mu/tip/i'city of proceedings-When the court has decreed 
the suit for sptcific relief of execution of the agreement to sale of an immovable 
property without a separate prayer for possession in the plaint, the decree iJ still 
executable without recourse to another separate suit for possession-Powers of the 
High Court to grant the relief in execution application. 
Pursuant to an agreement for sale of certain plots for Rs. 15, 500 M/s. 
Hazari Lal Kishori Lal respondent No. 1 atongwith respondents 2 to 5 had paid 
a sum of Rs. 1500/- as earnest money to respondents Nos. 6 to 9. The sale deed 
was to be executed within 15 days of the agreement. Respondents 6 to 9, how· 
ever, executed a sale deed in favour of Habu Lal, the petitioner, in respect of the 
same property for Rs. 20,000 on 7th August, 1967. Under ithe circumstances, 
respondents 1 to 5 filed a suit (No. 10 of 1968) in tho court of Civil Judge, 
Aligarh, for specific performance of the contract of sale. The petitioner resisted 
the claim on the ground that the sale in his favour was in pursuance of a prior 
agreement dated 8th July, 1967. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner 
started raising construction on the disputed plot after demolishing the old one. 
Respondents I to 5 applied for injunction restraining, the petitioner from doing 
so. The petitioner, however, gave an undertaking on 25th. March, 1968, before 
the Trial Court that he was making the construction at bis own peril and would 
demolish the same and restore the land to its original position in case the suit of 
the plaintiffs was decreed. The trial court dismissed the suit but on appeal the 
additional District Judge decreed the suit and in second appeal the High Court 
confirmed the judgment and decree Of the First Appellate Court ana directed the 
petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 to execute the sale deed in favour of respon-
dents Nos. 1 to 5. 
The petitioner, however, did not handover possession and remove the 
construction raised by him despite his undertaking dated 25th March, 1968. The 
decree-holders, therefore, applied for execution of the decree. The judgment~ 
debtor-petiti_oner filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Proce· 
dure taking all possible pleas to defeat the execution. ·His objections were three~ 
fold : (i) The decree was tnexecutable 'as the decree~holders did not claim a relief 
for possession in the suit itself and consequently there was no decree fOr 
I 
BABi.JL•L v. HAZARI LAL 
95 
Possession with the result that the application for execution by delivery of posses· 
sion was Hable to be dismissed in view of sect~on 22 (2) of the Specific Relief Actj 
(ii) the Urban Land Ceiling Act having come into force it was incumbent on the 
decree-holders to obtain thC permission as required under sections 26 and 27 of the 
· CeiJin~ Act and in the absence of a,ny such permission the application for execu· 
tion was not maintainable; and (iii) the vendors were not impleaded as parties 
originally and they were impleaded as parties only after the coUrt had directed the 
vendors to execute the sale deed. As the vendors were not partieS in the execu-
tion application it was not maintainable and it was not open to the execution 
court to implead a person who was not originally impleaded in the application. 
The execution court allowed the objection of the judgment debtor in part inas· 
much as it directed the execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the decree. It, 
however, refused to grant the relief of possession with the observatioi:i that the 
remedy of the decree.holders for possession was by means of a separate suit and 
not by execution proceedings. Objections (ii) and (iii) were overruled .. The 
order of the execution court was confirmed in appeal by the First Additional 
District Judge. Aligarh, dated 21st of February, 1977. The High Court allowed 
the appeal of the decree-holders and modified the order of the court below to the 
effect that the decree·holders shall be entitJed to possession also. Hence the peti· 
tion by special leave by judgment debtor·petitioner. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court. 
HELD : 1. A decree for spe

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