In this case supoose A and B entered into an oral contract for an immovable property.
A has the aforesaid property X which is at place Y city
A lives in Z city
and B lives in Y city
B comes to Z city to meet A and make the oral contract to buy X property and also paid a token money which is accepted by A
But after some time A returned the money by cheque but when B encash the cheque in bank in city Y it is returned by saying insufficient amount.
B seeks in court in city Y where he lives and also where the property X i.e. City Y
Question comes to court regarding jurisdiction.
B (plaintiff)appeal in court(in city Y) for specific performance of immovable property and also because he live in city Y and also property is held in city Y
A(defendant) said in his appeal that court has no jurisdiction as the contract took place in city Z where B came to A for the said contract and also the contract is terminated by A in city Z
Know the question comes to court where the jurisdiction lies and why?
Reply as soon as possible
thanks
