The law relating to the recovery of possession of immovable property in India is primarily governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). There are two main avenues for seeking possession:

1. Suit based on Title (Section 5 of SRA): This section states that a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is a regular title suit where the plaintiff must prove their legal title (ownership) to the property. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a superior title. The limitation period for such a suit is generally 12 years from the date when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff, as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Suit based on Prior Possession (Section 6 of SRA): This section provides a summary remedy for a person who has been dispossessed of immovable property without their consent and otherwise than in due course of law. The key aspects are:

   • Focus on Possession, not Title: In a Section 6 suit, the plaintiff only needs to prove prior possession and unlawful dispossession, not necessarily title. The question of who has a better title is irrelevant in this specific type of suit.
   • Time Limit: Such a suit must be instituted within six months from the date of dispossession.
   • No Appeal/Review: No appeal lies from any order or decree passed in a suit under Section 6, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
   • No Bar to Title Suit: A decree under Section 6 does not bar any person from suing to establish their title to the property and to recover possession thereof.

Necessity to Claim Possession in a Specific Performance Suit:

In a case for specific performance of a contract of sale of immovable property, it is generally necessary for a plaintiff to specifically claim the relief of 'possession' if they wish to obtain it through the same suit. This is explicitly provided under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Section 22(1) states that a plaintiff suing for specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for: (a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused.

Crucially, Section 22(2) and its Explanation clarify that the relief of possession or partition and separate possession shall not be granted unless it has been specifically claimed in the plaint. This means that if a plaintiff merely seeks specific performance (i.e., execution of the sale deed) without also praying for possession, the court, even after decreeing specific performance, cannot automatically grant possession. The plaintiff would then have to file a separate suit for possession, leading to multiplicity of litigation.

The rationale behind this provision is to avoid piecemeal litigation and to ensure that all reliefs arising from the same cause of action are sought in a single proceeding. Therefore, while a decree for specific performance can be granted without a prayer for possession, if the plaintiff intends to obtain physical possession of the property as a consequence of the sale, they must explicitly include a prayer for possession in their plaint.