No Need for Separate Possession Relief in Specific Performance Suits When Possession Transfer is Implied in Sale Agreement : Supreme Court
In Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that when possession of immovable property is implicitly transferred upon the execution of a sale deed, a separate suit for possession is unnecessary under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court explained that in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, the plaintiff may not need to claim possession separately if possession is inherently part of the agreement, as stipulated in Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
The case involved a challenge to the Delhi High Court's ruling, which quashed a suit for specific performance on the grounds of jurisdiction, stating the suit must be filed where the property is located. The appellant argued that since no separate possession claim was made, the suit could be filed where the defendant resided, citing Section 16 of the CPC. However, the Supreme Court held that a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement includes the transfer of possession, and no separate possession suit is needed.
The Court distinguished the case from Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat, emphasizing that under Sections 22 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transfer of possession is implied in contracts for sale, and a decree for specific performance inherently includes the transfer of possession. The Court therefore ruled that the absence of a separate prayer for possession did not affect the suit's validity under Section 16(d) of the CPC.