Specific performance - land - relief - prayer for delivery - bar - Suit for land defined - supreme court

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1566  of  1991
PETITIONER:
ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DAULAT AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2001
BENCH:
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan

The question then arises as to what is meant by suit for land. This expression has been interpreted by different High Courts as well as the Federal Court.
In His Highness Shrimant Maharaj Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore Vs. Dada Bhai Cursetji Ashburner [1890 (14) I.L.R. Bombay 353] a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance would not fall within the meaning of that expression. There the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to mortgage certain immovable property. The agreement was made in Bombay between the parties on January 8, 1883. The Divisional Court held, it had jurisdiction and granted decree. On appeal a Division Bench referred to an earlier judgment of that court in Yenkoba Balset Kasar Vs. Rambhaji (9 Bombay H.C.Rep.13) which laid down that suit for land was a suit which asked for delivery of land to the plaintiff. The High Court also referred to the view of the Calcutta High Court in The Delhi and London Bank Vs. Wordie [I.L.R., 1 Calcutta 249 at p.263] construing that expression to mean, substantially for land -- that is for the purpose of acquiring title to, or control over, land. It also noticed the view of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Sreenath Roy Vs. Cally Doss Ghose [I.L.R. (5) Calcutta 82] holding that the court had no jurisdiction to make a decree in a suit for specific performance. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the suit was within the jurisdiction whether regarded as a suit for specific performance or to enforce equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds as a court of equity in England could entertain it.

In M/s.Moolji Jaitha and Co. Vs. The Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. [A.I.R. (37) 1950 Federal Court 83], there is divergence of opinion among the learned Judges of five-Judge Bench of the Federal Court in regard to the import of the expression suit for land. Chief Justice Kania opined, Taking the suit as a whole, one has to consider whether it is for the purpose of obtaining a direction for possession or a decision on title to land, or the object of the suit is something different but involves the consideration of the question of title to land indirectly. Justice Fazl Ali observed, If I had really felt that I was called upon to decide it, I would have agreed with the line of cases in which it has been held that, broadly speaking, the expression suit for land covers the following three classes of suits : (1) suits for the determination of title to land; (2) suits for possession of land; and (3) other suits in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of land. Justice Patanjali Sastri took the view, The words in question, besides obviously covering claims for recovery of possession or control of land, are apt to connote also suit which primarily and substantially seek an adjudication upon title to immovable property or a determination of any right or interest therein. Justice Mahajan observed, If an attempt is made to find a comprehensive definition of the phrase, it will eventually be discovered that it has created further complications. I therefore content myself by saying that where the nature of the suit is such that in substance it involves a controversy about land or immovable property and the Court is called upon to decide conflicting claims to such property and a decree or order is prayed for which will bring about a change in the title to it, that suit can be said to be in respect of land or immovable property; but where incidentally in a suit, the main purpose of which or the primary object of which is quite different, some relief has to be given about land, the title to it not being in dispute in the real sense of the term, then such a suit cannot fall within the four corners of this expression. He added, In my opinion, if the suit is for specific performance and a decree for possession of the land sold is claimed, such a suit would certainly be a suit for land; but if the suit is simpliciter for specific performance, i.e., for the enforcement of the contract of sale and for execution of a conveyance, in that event there can be no good ground for holding that such a suit is a suit for determination of title to land or that the decree in it would operate on the land. In that view he expressed his agreement with the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Velliappa Chettiar Vs. Govinda Doss [AIR (16) 1929 Madras 721 F.B.]. Justice Mukherjea perceived, It seems to me fairly clear that the expression suit for land occurring in clause 12, Letters Patent, means a suit which is instituted with the object of establishing claims regarding title to the property or possession of it. Whether or not possession is claimed, if title to any immovable property is to be directly affected by the result of the decision, the suit would be a suit for land.

In Debendra Nath Chowdhury Vs. Southern Bank Ltd. [AIR 1960 Calcutta 626] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court took the view that the suit for specific performance of the contract to execute and register a lease with alternative claims for damages is not a suit for land within the meaning of clause 12 of the Letters Patent. From the above discussion it follows that a suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a suit for land or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a suit for land. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mahajan.J. in M/s.Moolji Jaithas case (supra).

In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property containing stipulation that on execution of the sale deed the possession of the immovable property will be handed over to the purchaser, it is implied that delivery of possession of the immovable property is part of the decree of specific performance of contract.

On the question of suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell being a suit for land, this Court has laid down a clear principle in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat Ram and Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 698, that a suit for specific performance simplicitor without a prayer for delivery of possession is not a suit for land as Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 categorically bars any Court to grant such relief of possession in a suit for specific performance unless specifically sought.