- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Though the respondents have been served, the second respondent has filed a photocopy of the Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 but when the Registry directed him to produce the original he failed to do the same. He is also not present in the Court. One Shyam Lal, son of Prabhu Lal Kayasth had laid the suit for specific performance; the Civil Judge dismissed the suit but on appeal No. 16/1973 by judgment and decree dated October 18, 1973, the suit was decreed as under: "Appeal is accepted with cost. Judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and suit for specific performance of contract is decreed with costs that defendants as per contract Ex. 1 at 1-9-66 shall execute sale deed within 3 months and plaintiff shall pay the balance sum to the defendant in the said period, otherwise plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed of the disputed property as per the law depositing the balance amount in the Court within two months."
(3.) In the suit there was prayer for specific performance with possession of the property in prayer 1 thus: "It be decreed that defendants should perform their part of the contract regarding the land and for this purpose get the sale deed registered after receiving a sum of Rs. 1100/- and handover the possession of the disputed house to the plaintiff." Under Section 22 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 notwithstanding anything contained in Civil Producer Code, the plaintiff suing for the specific performance of a contract for transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for possession or partition with specific possession of the property, in addition to such specific performance. Sub-section (2) puts fetters on the power of the Court to grant such relief without there being the relief specifically claimed in the plaint. As seen in the decree, though prayer for possession was claimed, no decree for possession was granted which has become final.;