Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Proviso to s.16 – When not applicable – Suit for specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit property situated in Gurugram, filed in the Delhi High Court – Single Judge held that the suit was maintainable in view of proviso to s.16 – Appeals filed by the defendants were allowed by Division Bench, plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff to present it before the appropriate court having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for specific performance – Correctness:
Held: No error committed by High Court in passing the impugned orders – s.16 deals with territorial jurisdiction of the courts and inter alia provides that suits for recovery, partition, foreclosure, for determination of any other right or interest in immovable property are to be instituted in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate – The proviso to s.16 however, provides 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 whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain – A suit for specific performance and delivery of possession is covered under clause
(d) to s.16 and thus the parties, even by agreement, cannot confer territorial jurisdiction on a court within whose territory the subject matter is not situated – Proviso to s.16 would be applicable to a case where the relief sought by the plaintiff can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant, that is, the defendant has not to go out of the jurisdiction of the court at all for the purpose of the grant of relief – However, since the present case would require the defendants to go to Gurugram for the purpose of execution of the sale deed, hence the proviso to s.16 will not be applicable – Further, it is clear from the terms of the alleged contract between the parties that the transfer of possession of the suit property is implicit in the said contract and absence of a specific prayer seeking transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character of the suit, which is one covered by s.16(d) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.55. [Paras 13, 18, 21, 33]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.22 – Import of – Discussed. [Paras 22-30]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.