Judgment :- 1. This revision by the plaintiff - decree holder is against the order of the execution court dismissing his petition for delivery of possession of the decree schedule properties. 2. The suit was instituted as early as in 1967 for a decree directing the defendants to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff. The relief claimed in the suit was, based on a right of pre-emption that the plaintiff had as per a settlement deed to which the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are parties. The third defendant was impleaded as the assignee of these items from defendants 1 and 2 in derogation of the plaintiff's right of pre-emption. The properties involved in the suit are a house and its compound described in schedules A and B in the plaint. 3. The trial court on 4-3-1971 dismissed the suit finding against the plaintiff's right of pre-emption. In appeal A.S.102/1971, the Sub Court, Trivandrum decreed the suit declaring the assignment in favour of the third defendant as invalid and directing the defendants to convey the suit properties to the plaintiff on deposit of the consideration specified in the decree. The decree further provided that on failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed within the time fixed therein, it is open to the plaintiff - decree holder to get the sale deed executed through court. Second Appeal 88 of 1975 by the third defendant was dismissed by this court confirming the, decree of the Sub Court in AS.No.102 of 1971. The decree - holder thereafter filed E.P. 39 of 1979 for execution of the decree and a sale deed dated 14-1-1980 was executed by the court conveying the suit properties to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought further execution of the decree by way of delivery of the properties to him. The execution court rejected the prayer for delivery on the ground that the decree does not specifically provide for any such relief. 4. On execution of the sale deed by the court in favour of the decree holder, he becomes entitled also to the possession of the property. The decree has invalidated the sale deed obtained by the third defendant from defendants 1 and 2. It directs all the defendants to convey the decree schedule properties to the plaintiff. It is on their failure. The decree has invalidated the sale deed obtained by the third defendant from defendants 1 and 2. It directs all the defendants to convey the decree schedule properties to the plaintiff. It is on their failure. to execute the sale deed that the court itself executed the same conveying the defendants' title to the decree holder. The conveyance deed in favour of the decree holder confers on him also a right to possession of the property. The Supreme Court in Babu Lal v. M/s.Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (AIR 1982 SC 818) dealing with a decree for specific performance observed at page 824: "It may not always be necessary for the plaintiff to specifically claim possession over the property, the relief of possession being inherent in the relief for specific performance of the contract of sale". Approving the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahendra Nath Gupta v. M/s. Moti Ram Rattan Chand (AIR 1975 Delhi 155) the Supreme Court observed at the same page: "In Mahendra Nath Gupta v. M/s. Moti Ram Rattan Chand, AIR 1975 Delhi 155, the Delhi High Court endorsed the view taken in Balmukand v. Veer Chand (AIR 1954 All. 643) (supra) that where in a suit for specific performance of the contact for sale relief for possession is not claimed and consequently the decree passed in the suit contains no relief for delivery of possession, the Court executing the decree is competent to deliver possession, an order directing delivery of possession being merely incidental to the execution of the deed of sale". 5. It was a case governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where there was no provision corresponding to S.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. S.22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an enabling provision with reference to which the Supreme Court observed at page 825: "20. "It is thus clear that the Legislature has given ample power to the court to allow amendment of the plaint at any stage, including the execution proceedings. In the instant case the High Court granted the relief of possession and the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner is that this was not possible at the execution stage and in any case the court should have allowed first an amendment in the plaint and then an opportunity should have been afforded to the petitioner to file an objection. 21. 21. If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree holder and the right and the title passes to him only on the execution of the deed of sale either by the judgment-debtor himself or by the court itself in case he fails to execute the sale deed, it is idle to contend that a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner merely because a decree has been passed for the specific performance of the contract. The limitation would start against the decree-holder only after they had obtained a sale in respect of the disputed property. It is therefore difficult to accept that a valuable right had accrued to the judgment-debtor by lapse of time. S.22 has been enacted only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings which the law courts always abhor". 6. In the light of the principle stated above, we are of the view that the decree holder by virtue of the deed of conveyance executed by the court is entitled to enforce his right to possession of the properties in execution of the decree obtained by him. We, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and direct the execution court to put the decree holder in possession of the decree schedule properties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The parties will suffer their respective costs.