Ritu Sharma and Another vs Shri Sandeep Sharma and Others

A.K. Pathak, J.—On 27th April, 2009 following preliminary issue was framed:

(a) Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit in respect of the property bearing No. B-38, Sector 39, Noida?

Arguments on the preliminary issue heard.

Plaintiffs are sisters of Defendant No. 1. They have filed this suit for partition, rendition of accounts and injunction in respect of following two properties:

(A) Flat No. J-11, Parwana Vihar, Sector 9, Rohini, New Delhi.

(B) Plot No. B-38, Sector 39, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

Besides seeking partition of abovementioned immovable property, Plaintiffs have also claimed their share in M/s. Neera Sales (P) Ltd. and 30,000 units of face value of Rs. 10/- each of the Unit Trust of India purchased by Late Smt. Sneh Sharma (their mother) during her life time.

As per the Defendant No. 3, who is purchaser in respect of Noida property, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit since the immovable property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 3 has contended that in terms of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code of Civil Procedure for short) a suit in respect of an immovable property can be filed in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. It is contended that since the immovable property is in Noida in the state of Uttar Pradesh, a suit could have been filed in the Court of competent Jurisdiction at Noida alone. Reliance has been placed on Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal and Another, , Assandas v. Kodandas AIR 1931 Sind 50 and Anil Kumar v. Suman Bala AIR 1980 Del 103.

Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has argued that since two immovable properties are involved in this case out of which one is situated in Delhi, therefore, Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in terms of Section 17 Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that if more than one immovable properties are involved in a lis and are situated at different places then suit can be brought before a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction one of the properties is located. Reliance has been placed on Shri Bishamber Dayal v. Shri Ram Pershad etc., ILR (1981) Del and Dewan Izzat Rai Nanda v. Dewan Iqbal Nath Nanda and Ors. AIR 1981 Del 262.

Relevant it would be to quote Sections 16 and 17 of CPC at this stage, which reads as under:

Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.

Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits-

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,

(b) for the partition of immovable property,

(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,

(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the Defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

Explanation.- In this section "property" means property situate in India.

Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

A conjoint reading of Sections 16 and 17 of the CPC makes it abundantly clear that a suit for partition, in respect of immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, can be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. In this case, one of the immovable properties is situated in Delhi and one in Noida. If the Plaintiff had to file separate suit seeking similar relief, reason being that one of the property to be partitioned lies outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, than it would be encouraging multiplicity of litigation. Furthermore, there may be conflict of opinion between two courts if such separate suits are filed. That apart, Section 17 CPC in no uncertain terms envisages that where immovable properties situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, suit can be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any one property is situated. Thus, in my view, Delhi Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

In Shri Bishamber Dayal''s case (supra) a suit for partition and rendition of accounts was filed in this Court in respect of immovable properties situated in Rohtak and Delhi. A Single Judge of this Court held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 17 Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has jurisdiction to grant relief with regard to the immovable property situated outside Delhi as well. Similar is the view taken in Dewan Izzat Rai Nanda''s case (supra), wherein partition of property and accounts were sought, however, immovable properties were situated in Delhi, Jullundur and State of Jammu and Kashmir. Upon scrutiny of Sections 16 and 17 Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that since one of the properties was situated in Delhi, the suit was maintainable at Delhi.

As regards judgments, reliance whereupon has been placed by the counsel for Defendant No. 3, same are in the context of different facts and are of no help to the Defendants. In the said cases, only one immovable property was involved and the same was outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.

In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that Delhi Courts do have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. Preliminary issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

List of witnesses be filed by the parties within two weeks. Evidence by way of affidavits be filed by the Plaintiffs within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the opposite party.

List before the Joint Registrar on 1st December, 2011 for Plaintiffs'' evidence.