Relief of possession is ancillary and inherent in a decree for specific performance of contract.

The Plaintiff (Respondent) entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land with the Defendant (Appellant) on 28.01.2003 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,64,000/-

The Plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money initially, followed by payments of Rs. 50,000/- on 08.03.2003 and Rs. 64,000/- on 29.03.2003, totaling the full consideration

These subsequent payments were noted on the agreement (Ex. P/1) and signed by the Defendant

Despite full payment, the Defendant failed to execute the sale deed.

The Plaintiff served a legal notice on 23.02.2006 and filed a suit for specific performance on 27.03.2006

The Defendant contested the suit, denying full payment, possession transfer, and asserting the suit was barred by limitation and laches

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff on 27.11.2008

The Defendant's legal heirs preferred this first appeal

1. Whether the Plaintiff proved the payment of the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 1,14,000/- (in two installments) through the endorsements and signatures on the agreement to sell?

2. Whether the Plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as required under the Specific Relief Act?

3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation or the doctrine of delay and laches?

The Court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the jurisdiction of first appeals

It relied on Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for specific performance from the date fixed for performance or notice of refusal

The Court utilized Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, interpreting that relief for possession is ancillary to a decree for specific performance

It followed the principles in Pydi Ramana Alias Ramulu v. Davarasety Manamadha Rao (2024) regarding unexplained delay

It followed the principles in Babu Lal v. M/s Hazari Lal Kishore Lal (1982) and Manickam @ Thandapani v. Vasantha (2022) regarding the inherent nature of possession in specific performance decrees

On the first issue, the Court found the Trial Court’s findings were not perverse, as the testimony of the Plaintiff (PW-1) and attesting witnesses (PW-2, PW-3) corroborated the full payment

Crucially, the handwriting expert (PW-4) confirmed the disputed signatures on the payment notes belonged to the Defendant

Regarding readiness and willingness, the Court observed that the Plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration within two months of the agreement, far exceeding the standard of a "reasonable person"

The Court distinguished Pydi Ramana on the facts, noting that here, the Plaintiff’s prompt payment evidenced continuous willingness, and the suit was filed within the statutory three-year limit under Article 54 of the Limitation Act

Finally, regarding possession, the Court held that even if possession was not explicitly granted by the Trial Court, it is an inherent part of a specific performance decree under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, and the Plaintiff is entitled to it upon execution of the sale deed

The Court held that the Plaintiff successfully proved full payment of the consideration and established readiness and willingness to perform the contract

It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation or laches as it was filed within three years of the refusal to execute the deed

The Court directed that a decree be drawn up accordingly, confirming the Plaintiff’s entitlement to specific performance and the inherent right to possession