Introduction:

In the case Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors. (2024 LiveLaw SC 951), the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether possession of immovable property is implicitly transferred upon the execution of a sale deed and if a separate suit for possession is required under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). The matter arose from an appeal challenging a Delhi High Court decision that dismissed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for property in Gurgaon, citing lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) does not apply, as the suit did not explicitly involve possession. The Court delved into precedents, including Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Adcon Electronics v. Daulat, to resolve the issue.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that their suit was a personal action to enforce an agreement to sell and not a “suit for land.” Therefore, under the proviso to Section 16 of the CPC, the suit could be filed in Delhi, where the defendant resided, rather than in Gurgaon, where the property was located. They contended that possession was not explicitly claimed in the suit, and Section 22 of the SRA did not mandate a specific prayer for possession in such cases. They relied on the precedent set in Adcon Electronics, which treated specific performance suits as actions in personam, emphasizing that the relief sought pertained to enforcing the agreement, not recovering possession.

Arguments by the Respondent:

The respondents argued that the suit was inherently a “suit for land” as possession of the property was integral to the agreement. Citing Babu Lal, they contended that Section 22 of the SRA allows plaintiffs to claim possession along with specific performance. They further highlighted Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, which obliges the seller to hand over possession upon execution of the sale deed. The respondents maintained that the jurisdictional bar under Section 16(d) of the CPC applied, necessitating the filing of the suit in the court where the property was situated.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision, holding that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell inherently involves the element of possession, making it a “suit for land” under Section 16(d) of the CPC. The Court reasoned that possession is implicitly transferred under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and does not require a separate claim in such cases. It distinguished the case from Adcon Electronics, noting that Babu Lal provided a more comprehensive interpretation of the interplay between the SRA and the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court highlighted that under Section 22 of the SRA, possession and other incidental reliefs could be claimed simultaneously with specific performance. This position aligns with the legislative intent to simplify legal processes and prevent multiplicity of suits. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction for such cases lies in the court where the property is situated, as the relief sought impacts the property’s title and possession.

Further, the Court clarified that agreements stipulating possession transfer upon payment of sale consideration, as in this case, inherently involve possession. Thus, the absence of an explicit prayer for possession does not change the suit’s character. The judgment underscored the principle that jurisdictional rules ensure proper adjudication based on the property’s location, safeguarding legal certainty and convenience.