Relief of Possession Inherent in Decree for Specific Performance Even Without Specific Plea: P&H High Court

Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Vijay Kumar Dhingra and others, challenging the dismissal of their third-party objections in an execution proceeding related to a disputed plot in Green Fields Colony, Faridabad. The court reaffirmed that the decree for specific performance in favor of S.V. Babber inherently included the relief of possession, even though it was not explicitly pleaded in the original suit.

The case revolves around plot No. AM-37 (New No: C-3649), purchased by S.V. Babber in 1988 from Urban Improvement Company Pvt. Ltd. (UIC). After UIC illegally canceled Babber’s allotment and reallocated the plot to Amitabh Sinha in 2004, Babber filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Babber’s suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision, declaring the cancellation illegal and reinstating Babber’s ownership. Subsequent appeals by UIC and Sinha were dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

During execution of the decree, the appellants—bona fide purchasers of flats built on the disputed plot—filed objections, claiming they were not part of the original litigation and had invested substantial amounts in purchasing the flats. Their objections were dismissed by the executing court, prompting this appeal.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the appellants, who were not part of the original suit, could claim rights over the disputed property and whether possession was an inherent relief in a decree for specific performance. The appellants argued that the decree did not explicitly grant possession, while S.V. Babber contended that possession is inherently included in such decrees.

The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Manickam @ Thandapani vs. Vasantha (2022), which held that the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and can be granted even if not explicitly claimed. The court also referred to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows a plaintiff to seek possession at any stage of the proceedings, including during execution.

The High Court upheld the executing court’s ruling, dismissing the appellants' objections. It observed that the appellants' claims were barred by lis pendens since the flats were purchased while the litigation was ongoing. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that possession is inherently tied to specific performance, and the decree in favor of S.V. Babber granted him the right to possession, even if not expressly mentioned in the initial suit.

The court’s dismissal of the appeal reaffirmed the principle that possession is an inherent part of specific performance, and third-party purchasers cannot override this right, especially when their purchase occurred during ongoing litigation.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2024