Shivnarayan (D) by L.Rs. v. Maniklal (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.
(The Petition was dismissed and the Court stated that t the trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 and the High court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the order of the trial court.)
Bench: Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Issue:
Whether the court of one jurisdiction can try property situated in any other jurisdiction by virtue of Section 17 of CPC?
Facts:
- Appellant filed a suit to declare transfer documents related to Suit property to be null and void.
- Plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to 1/3rd of the Property.
- Plaintiff prayed several reliefs including nullifying the transfers taken place over the suit properties.
- The defendants filed an application to strike out pleadings and dismiss the suit against them.
- The properties are situated in Bombay (Pune) and Indore.
Appellant's Contentions:
- High Court did not correctly interpret Section 17 of CPC.
- The partition suit filed by the Appellant regarding the properties are fully maintainable.
- Order 2 Rule 2 mandates that the plaintiff must include the whole claim in respect of a cause of action in the suit.
- Restrictive interpretation of Section 17 will do violence to the mandate of Order II Rule 2. Section 39(1)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure itself contemplate that there can be a decree of an immovable property, which is situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction.
- The words "immovable property"' used in Section 17 is to be interpreted by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act. It provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless the context and subject otherwise requires, "any singular term shall include plural".
Respondent's Contentions:
- No error has been committed by trial court in deleting the property at Para No. 1B in the plaint as well as pleadings and reliefs with regard to said property.
- Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplate filing of a suit with respect to immovable property situated in jurisdiction of different courts only when any portion of the property is situated in the jurisdiction of a Court, where suit has to be filed.
- The word "any portion of the property" indicate that property has to be one whose different portions may be situated in jurisdiction of two or more Courts.
- There is no common cause of action with regard to property situate at Indore and property situate at Mumbai.
- The Court at Indore might proceed with the property at Indore with the Defendants, who are related to Indore property but suit pertaining to Mumbai property, transactions relating thereto and Defendants relating to Mumbai property have rightly been struck off from the case.
Final Decision:
The Court first clarified the word "property" used in Section 17 and held that it includes properties. The court reiterated that interpretation of word "portion of the property" cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property situated in jurisdictionof two courts. The court stressed that in a suit when the cause of action for filing the suit is different, the Courts have not upheld the jurisdiction of one Court to entertain suits pertaining to property situated in different courts.Thus, for a suit filed in a Court pertaining to properties situated in jurisdiction of more than two courts, the suit is maintainable only when suit is filed on one cause of action. The Court further stated that the suit as framed with regard to Bombay property was clearly not maintainable in the Indore Courts. The trial court did not commit any error in striking out the pleadings and relief pertaining to Bombay property. As noticed above there are different set of Defendants who have different causes of actions. The Court dismissed the petition.
Click here to register
