A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The case of Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr., [2024] 12 S.C.R. 484, revolved around the question of whether an executing court can grant possession of a property when a suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter, without expressly ordering the transfer of possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) and affirmed that in certain circumstances, possession can be granted by the executing court, even if the decree does not explicitly mention it. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982) 1 SCC 525, which clarified that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 allows a plaintiff to amend the plaint even during execution proceedings to claim possession. The Court ruled that when the contracting party is in exclusive possession, a decree for specific performance implicitly grants possession. However, when third-party rights arise or the property is jointly held, the plaintiff must claim possession separately. This ruling aligns with Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which mandates that a seller must deliver possession upon execution of a sale deed. The case reaffirms that execution proceedings can include an amendment to seek possession to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
Keywords: Specific performance, Executing court, Possession, Transfer of Property Act, Section 22 of Specific Relief Act
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgment Cause Title:
Birma Devi & Ors. v. Subhash & Anr.
ii) Case Number:
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29397 of 2024
iii) Judgment Date:
06 December 2024
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan
vi) Author:
Justice J.B. Pardiwala
vii) Citation:
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 484; 2024 INSC 949
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
- Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None
x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Specific Relief Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT
This case arose from execution proceedings in a decree for specific performance. The core dispute was whether the executing court had the authority to deliver possession of the suit property, even though the original decree did not explicitly provide for possession. The plaintiffs had obtained a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement, but the executing court denied possession, holding that the decree only directed execution of the sale deed. The High Court of Rajasthan overturned this ruling, ordering the executing court to grant possession to the decree-holder. The subsequent purchasers of the property challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a decree for specific performance inherently includes the right to possession, except in cases where third-party interests have arisen or joint possession exists. The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling, citing Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982) 1 SCC 525, and emphasized that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows a decree-holder to seek possession even at the execution stage.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
- The plaintiffs (decree-holders) had entered into an agreement of sale with the original defendants.
- They filed a suit for specific performance when the defendants failed to execute the sale deed.
- The Trial Court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed but did not expressly grant possession.
- Before execution, the original defendants sold the suit property to subsequent purchasers (the petitioners before the Supreme Court).
- The executing court refused to grant possession, citing the absence of an explicit direction in the decree.
- The plaintiffs challenged this refusal before the Rajasthan High Court, which set aside the executing court’s decision and ordered possession to be handed over.
- The subsequent purchasers (petitioners) challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that possession could not be granted without a specific relief for possession in the decree.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether an executing court can grant possession when a decree for specific performance does not explicitly direct the transfer of possession?
- Whether Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, permits amendment of the plaint at the execution stage to seek possession?
- Whether subsequent purchasers of the suit property can prevent the execution court from granting possession?
F) PETITIONERS’ (APPELLANTS’) ARGUMENTS
- The decree was only for specific performance and did not expressly provide for possession.
- The executing court lacked jurisdiction to grant possession beyond the terms of the decree.
- The subsequent purchasers had acquired independent rights, which could not be defeated without a separate suit for possession.
- The High Court erred in holding that possession is automatically included in a decree for specific performance.
G) RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
- A decree for specific performance includes an implicit right to possession.
- Under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a seller must deliver possession upon execution of the sale deed.
- Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows amendment even at the execution stage to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
- The petitioners had no independent title, as their purchase was subject to the plaintiffs’ prior contractual rights.
H) JUDGMENT
a. Ratio Decidendi
- The executing court can grant possession when a decree for specific performance has been passed, even if possession is not explicitly mentioned.
- Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, allows the amendment of pleadings even at the execution stage to seek possession.
- Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, mandates that possession must be handed over to the buyer upon execution of the sale deed.
- Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982) 1 SCC 525 was reaffirmed, holding that in appropriate cases, possession can be granted by the execution court.
- The subsequent purchasers acquired the property subject to the pre-existing decree and could not override the decree-holder’s rights.
b. Obiter Dicta (if any)
- Execution proceedings are part of the same suit, and a decree-holder should not be forced to file a separate suit for possession.
c. Guidelines (If Any)
- A decree for specific performance normally includes the right to possession unless the decree states otherwise.
- Executing courts can order possession even if the decree is silent on this aspect.
- Subsequent purchasers cannot defeat the rights of decree-holders in specific performance cases.
- Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act must be liberally construed to avoid unnecessary litigation.
I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court’s decision in Birma Devi v. Subhash reaffirms the broad power of executing courts in specific performance cases. By upholding the implied right to possession, the judgment prevents unnecessary litigation and protects the rights of decree-holders. The ruling aligns with Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and follows precedent set in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal. It ensures that subsequent purchasers cannot undermine validly decreed transactions.
J) REFERENCES
Important Cases Referred
- Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, (1982) 1 SCC 525
- Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., 2024 INSC 920
Important Statutes Referred
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 22
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 55
