JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “i. The impugned order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Additional District Judge Srikaranpur District Sriganganagar in Execution case no. 27/2018 (Narendra Kumar V/s Ramji Lal & Ors.) may kindly be declared illegal and be set aside. ii. That the application filed by the deceased Ramji Lal under 47 C.P.C. (Annexure -4) may kindly be allowed as prayed for. iii. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. iv. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 12.11.1990 was filed by respondent no.1 (Annexure-1) for the property Muraba No.35 at Chak 4-U, Aahta No.17 measuring 35 x 60 feet situated at Labour Colony, Faridsar, Tehsil Karanpur wherein the respondent no.1 prayed for execution of the sale deed. The suit for specific performance came to be decreed against the petitioner’s deceased father ie Ramjilal and the decree (Annexure-2) for specific performance was drawn. 3. Thereafter the execution application (Annexure-3) was filed by the respondent No 1 seeking the same relief that was prayed in the plaint regarding specific performance along with an additional prayer of handing over the possession of the land which was not sought by the respondent no 1 in the suit nor was decreed in his favour by the trial court. Thereafter upon the service of notices, the deceased Ram Lal preferred an objection application dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure-4) under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 with the averments that the property in dispute is an ancestral property and thus the execution proceedings cannot be initiated against the deceased Ramjilal and moreover there was no relief sought regarding possession of the property by the respondent No. 1 in the plaint and thus an additional relief regarding possession in the execution application was not maintainable as the suit was of the nature of the specific performance and not a suit for possession of land in dispute. 4. The respondents filed the reply (Annexure-5) to the objection application. 4. The respondents filed the reply (Annexure-5) to the objection application. Thereafter the court below dismissed the objection application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-6) The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2019 prefers this writ petition. Hence this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the execution court erred in ignoring the importance of omission of a specific plea regarding the relief of granting possession in a suit for specific performance, thus in absence of the same no decree for handing over the possession can be passed. Furthermore he submitted that the execution court erred in ignoring the fact that no relief regarding handing over the possession was ever decreed in favour of the respondent No. 1. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the suit of specific performance no such relief was asked by the respondent No. 1 nor any issue was framed nor any decree was drawn hence the order assailed is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the disputed property is under the possession of several people claiming to be legal representatives of Ramji Lal (deceased), thus without filing a suit for possession the possession of such persons cannot be disturbed. He further submitted that the execution court erred in ignoring the well settled principle of law that a suit for specific performance is not a suit for possession of land as Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 categorically bars any Court to grant such relief of possession in a suit for Specific Performance unless specially sought. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the judgment dated 12.09.2001 passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3712 . 9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the suit for specific performance preferred by respondent No.1 has been decreed and the Learned Court below has directed to make payment of Rs 86000/-to the defendants and it has been observed that the property Muraba No.35 at Chak 4-U, Aahta No.17 measuring 35 x 60 feet situated at Labour Colony, Faridsar, Tehsil Karanpur be transferred to respondent No.1 and sale deed be executed. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 indicates that it is not always incumbent on the plaintiff to pray possession or partition or separate possession in a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of the immovable property and the relief of possession can be granted without there being any specific prayer and the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to prolong the litigation and in order to deprive the respondent No.1 to have the decree executed in his favour and thus the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the respondent No.1 had deposited the entire amount as directed in the judgment and the decree passed by the court below and when in the first instance the decree of specific performance has been granted then the relief of possession being incidental could always be granted by the executing court and as such executing court has rightly rejected the objections preferred by the petitioner herein and has not committed any irregularity or illegality while passing the order impugned. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the judgment dated 05.04.2022 passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Hemant Gupta Vs. Ramasubramanian, JJ reported in (2022) 5 SCC 1996. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 14. The petitioner had preferred an application under Section 47 of CPC raising objection to the execution petition No.27/2018 preferred by the respondent on the ground that the decree holder got the blank papers signed from the deceased Ramji Lal and on the said signed papers, a forged and fake agreement was made by the decree holder for the land in dispute. It has also been submitted in the application that there was no deal made between the decree holder and the judgment writer for the land in dispute and therefore, the said application filed for execution, is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the application, the petitioner also submitted that the deceased Ramji Lal was ready to abide by the terms of the said agreement but was not ready to abide by the decreed conditions and thus, the execution application is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the application, the petitioner also submitted that the deceased Ramji Lal was ready to abide by the terms of the said agreement but was not ready to abide by the decreed conditions and thus, the execution application is liable to be dismissed. It is seen from the application filed by the petitioner that on one hand, the petitioner has categorically said that the agreement is fake and forged and on the other hand, it is submitted in the application that the deceased Ramji Lal alongwith some people met the respondent-plaintiff for fulfillment of the contract by way of paying compensation to the plaintiff-respondent as an advance amount which was not accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. 16. It is seen that in the application, the petitioner has stated that the possession of the disputed land was not obtained by the plaintiff as per the agreement and even today, the possession and tenancy of the deceased Ramji lal on the land in dispute, still continues and thus, in such circumstances, the decree and judgment cannot be enforced. Further, the petitioner in the application has stated that the land mentioned in the agreement under the category of ancestral property in which, each heir of the family has a right and share and therefore, the deceased Ramji lal had no right to sell the said land alone and the consent of each heir is necessary and therefore, in the absence of the consent, the decree and the judgment dated 07.03.1998, cannot be executed. 17. The petitioner has also stated in the application that the plaintiff-respondent has not received the possession of the disputed land through the agreement, nor any decision in respect to the same has been given vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.1998 and thus, in such circumstances, the decree and judgment dated 07.03.1998, cannot be executed. 18. 17. The petitioner has also stated in the application that the plaintiff-respondent has not received the possession of the disputed land through the agreement, nor any decision in respect to the same has been given vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.1998 and thus, in such circumstances, the decree and judgment dated 07.03.1998, cannot be executed. 18. A bare perusal of the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1998 reflects that the Court below, had specifically directed the petitioner defendant to execute the sale deed for the land in dispute and also getting the same registered in favour of the plaintiff while directing the plaintiff-respondent to pay the cost of registration and thus, once, the sale deed is executed and registered, the possession of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is ancillary and in the absence of any direction given by the Court below while passing the decree in respect to the possession to be handed over to the respondent-plaintiff, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-respondent cannot make a prayer while filing the application for execution of the decree and judgment that the possession of the land in question may be delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. The relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for Specific Performance and need not be specifically claimed. 19. This Court finds that Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Hemant Gupta Vs. Ramasubramanian, JJ reported in (2022) 5 SCC 1996, has held that:- “29. To examine whether a provision is directory or mandatory, one of the tests is that the court is required to ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scheme of the statute. Keeping in view the scheme of the statute, we find that Section 22(2) of the Act is only directory and thus, the decree-holder cannot be nonsuited for the reason that such relief was not granted in the decree for specific relief. 30. The defendant in terms of the agreement is bound to handover possession of the land agreed to be sold. The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. 30. The defendant in terms of the agreement is bound to handover possession of the land agreed to be sold. The expression "at any stage of proceeding" is wide enough to allow the plaintiffs to seek relief of possession even at the appellate stage or in execution even if such prayer was required to be claimed. This Court in Babu Lal has explained the circumstances where relief of possession may be necessary such as in a suit for partition or in a case of separate possession where the property conveyed is a joint property. In the suit for specific performance, the possession is inherent in such suit, therefore, we find that the decree-holders are in fact entitled to possession in pursuance of the sale deed executed in their favor. 31. The judgment debtor in the written statement has admitted that the property is a vacant land and that she has sold other portion in favor of one Lakshmipathy. The stand of the judgment debtor now that the respondent is in possession of 750 sq. feet would not defeat the right of possession of 2400 sq. feet of an area which she has agreed to sell to the plaintiffs in respect of which decree was passed. All sales affected, and the construction, if any, raised are subject to lis pendens and no legal or equitable rights arise in favour of the purchasers during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the decree-holders are entitled to actual physical possession of 2400 sq. feet of land which was agreed to be sold to the appellants. 32. The appeal is thus allowed. The order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The Executable Court shall ensure that such decree is executed and if any construction is raised on any part of the land agreed to be sold, the possession shall be delivered with or without construction in accordance with law.” 20. Thus, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel representing the parties and applying the ratio of the decision given by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Hemant Gupta (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-6) passed by Additional District Judge Srikaranpur District Sri Ganganagar in Execution Case No.27/2018 (Narendra Kumar Vs. Ramji Lal & Ors.) does not suffer from any error, illegality or infirmity warranting interference therein, as the court below had specifically directed the petitioner defendant for execution of the sale deed and for the registration of the sale deed as well and thus, once, the sale deed is executed and registered, the possession of the land in dispute is ancillary and in such a case, it is open for the plaintiff/respondent to make a prayer at the time of filing the execution of decree and judgment for delivery of the possession of the land in question in his favour. 21. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand rejected.