LexBIRMA DEVI & ORS. versus SUBHASH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 484 : 2024 INSC 949 Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr. (Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 29397 of 2024) 06 December 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration 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. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.22 – Executing court declined to handover the possession of the suit property to the respondents-plaintiffs (decree holders) holding that though there was a decree for specific performance no relief as regards putting the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property was granted – Order set aside by High Court – Challenged by subsequent purchasers: Held: In cases where the possession of the suit property is exclusively with the contracting party, then a decree for specific performance simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree holder – However, in cases where the relief of possession cannot be effectively granted to the decree-holder without specifically claiming relief for possession, for example, in cases where the property agreed to be conveyed is jointly held by the defendant with other persons, or cases where after the contract the property has passed in possession of a third person, then the plaintiff, in order to obtain complete and effective relief, must claim the relief of transfer of possession over the property – Section 22 allows the plaintiff to amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at “any stage of the proceeding” including the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court – Special Leave Petition dismissed – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.55. [Paras 13, 16] [2024] 12 S.C.R. 485 Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr. Case Law Cited Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal [1982] 3 SCR 94 : (1982) 1 SCC 525; Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors., 2024 INSC 920 – relied on. List of Acts Specific Relief Act, 1963; Transfer of Property Act, 1882. List of Keywords Agreement of sale; Decree for specific performance; Executing court; Relief of possession; Suit decreed for specific performance simpliciter; No express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property; Possession of the suit property not handed over; Delivery of possession; Contracting party; Complete relief to the decree holder; Relief of possession; Property passed in possession of a third person; Subsequent purchasers; Stage of execution of the decree; Amend the plaint; “any stage of the proceeding”. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29397 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 11.07.2023 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCWP No. 4982 of 2020 Appearances for Parties Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Narender Kumar Sharma, Ms. Suman Sharma, Varun Punia, Advs. for the Petitioners. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Ms. Chavi Kalla, Ms. Maitri Goal, V. Sibi Kargil, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Application seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. 2. Delay condoned. 486 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 3. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4982/2020, by which the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents – herein (original plaintiffs and decree holders) and set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bansur, District Alwar (Rajasthan) in Execution No.06/2018. 4. The facts of this case in brief are that the petitioners– herein claim to be the subsequent purchasers of the suit property. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale with the original defendants. The plaintiffs have succeeded in the suit. The Trial Court passed a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiffs. 5. It appears that since the original defendant who had executed the agreement of sale is no longer interested in the matter as he seems to have sold the suit property to the petitioners – herein, there has been no further challenge to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.