Specific Relief Act — S. 22 — Possession / sale deed cannot be granted unless prayed for — Supreme Court’s principle on “moulding relief” distinguished

1. CPC, 1908 — S. 100 — Scope of Second Appeal — Limited interference

High Court in second appeal interferes only where findings of the first appellate court are contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or unsupported by evidence; it cannot re-appreciate facts otherwise. (Bhagwan Sharma v. Bani Ghosh; Kondira Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Gujar — followed.)

2. Appeal + Cross-Objection — Composite Judgment — No res judicata

Where an appeal and cross-objection are disposed of by one judgment and a single composite decree, one second appeal challenging that decree suffices — principles of res judicata do not arise between components of the same decree. (Narhari v. Shanker — applied.)

3. Contract — “Agreement to enter into agreement” — Not enforceable

Document (Ex.A-1) dated 14-02-2001 stipulating execution of future agreement on 14-06-2001 held not a concluded contract but only an agreement to enter into an agreement.
Suit for specific performance filed before 14-06-2001 held premature and unenforceable.

4. Stamp Law — Insufficient stamping — Document may operate only as receipt

Ex.A-1 recording payment of Rs.20,000 towards contemplated sale of Rs.2,15,000, being written on Re.1 stamp, is inadmissible as agreement.
Trial court rightly treated it only as acknowledgment/receipt and granted refund.

5. Specific Relief Act — S. 22 — Possession / sale deed cannot be granted unless prayed for — Supreme Court’s principle on “moulding relief” distinguished

Prayer in suit was only for execution of registered agreement — no prayer for sale deed or possession.
But first appellate court decreed:

(a) execution of sale deed; and
(b) delivery of possession.

Held:

• Under Section 22 SRA, relief of possession or conveyance cannot be granted unless specifically pleaded —
  even under the court’s power to mould relief,
  nor at execution stage unless decree itself contains such relief.

• Respondents’ reliance on Supreme Court decisions allowing consequential relief without prayer was distinguished as inapplicable in specific performance matters governed by S. 22.

Appellate decree held perverse and unsustainable.

---

6. Result

Second appeal allowed.
Trial court decree dismissing specific performance and granting refund of Rs.20,000 with 9% interest restored.
No costs.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Facts and Procedural History

• Plaintiff contended defendant agreed to sell land for Rs.2,15,000 on 14-02-2001, accepted Rs.20,000 as advance, and would execute agreement of sale on 14-06-2001.

• Before that date, plaintiff filed suit (27-03-2001) seeking direction to execute registered agreement of sale.

• Meanwhile, defendant executed registered sale deed in favour of D2.

• Trial court:

  • Found Ex.A-1 insufficiently stamped and not a concluded contract

  • Granted refund with interest, refused specific performance

• First appellate court reversed and:

  • directed execution of sale deed, and

  • ordered delivery of possession

D2 filed second appeal.

II. Legal Issues

1. Whether Ex.A-1 is enforceable as agreement of sale.

2. Whether suit for specific performance lies on such document.

3. Whether first appellate court could decree sale deed/possession absent such prayer.

4. Whether second appeal was barred due to absence of separate appeal against cross-objections.

III. Findings

A. Ex.A-1 — Not a concluded contract

• It reflects intent to enter into future agreement — cannot be enforced.

• Suit was premature.

B. Insufficient stamping reinforces non-enforceability

• Trial court correctly used Ex.A-1 as receipt, not agreement.

C. Relief beyond pleadings — Impermissible in specific performance

• Plaintiff never sought relief of:

  • execution of sale deed

  • delivery of possession

• First appellate court’s decree granting these was beyond pleadings.

D. Apex court jurisprudence relied on by respondents was expressly considered and rejected

• Respondents cited SC rulings on “moulding relief” and consequential relief even at execution.

• High Court held:

  • those dicta do not override the statutory mandate of S. 22 Specific Relief Act,

  • in specific performance suits, court cannot grant possession unless pleaded,

  • nor can possession be supplied at execution unless decree contains it.

This distinction is central and decisive.

E. On res judicata / appealability

• Composite decree → one second appeal maintainable → res judicata does not arise.

IV. Outcome

• Second appeal allowed.

• Trial decree restored.

• No costs.