Ritu Sharma & Another vs Shri Sandeep Sharma & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4230 Del

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS (OS) No. 1226/1999
*
                                         Decided on: 30th August, 2011

RITU SHARMA & ANOTHER                                  .......Plaintiffs

                          Through:    Mr. Atul Sharma and
                                      Mr. Sardjanand Jha, Advs.
                          Vs.

SHRI SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS.                             .....Defendants

                          Through:    Mr. Sunil Malhotra and
                                      Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advs. for
                                      defendant No. 3.
                                      Mr. J.C. Mahindru, Adv. for the
                                      Defendant No. 4.

Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

       1. Whether the Reporters of local papers          No
          may be allowed to see the judgment?

       2. To be referred to Reporter or not?             No

       3. Whether the judgment should be                 No
          reported in the Digest?

A.K. PATHAK, J.(ORAL)


1.     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?"

2.     Arguments on the preliminary issue heard.

3.     Plaintiffs are sisters of defendant No. 1. They have filed this


CS (OS) No. 1226/1999                                         Page 1 of 6
 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.


4.           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 `10/- each of the

Unit Trust of India purchased by Late Smt. Sneh Sharma (their

mother) during her life time.

5.     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 (CPC 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 Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 4446,
CS (OS) No. 1226/1999                                        Page 2 of 6
 Assandas vs. Kodandas AIR 1931 Sind 50 and Anil Kumar vs.

Suman Bala AIR 1980 Delhi 103.

6.     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 CPC.            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 vs. Shri Ram Pershad etc., ILR (1981) I Delhi and Dewan Izzat

Rai Nanda vs. Dewan Iqbal Nath Nanda and Others, AIR 1981 Delhi

262.

7.     Relevant it would be to quote Sections 16 and 17 of CPC at

this stage, which reads as under:-

       "16. 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,

CS (OS) No. 1226/1999                                        Page 3 of 6
        (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.

       17. 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."


8.     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

CS (OS) No. 1226/1999                                           Page 4 of 6
 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.

9.     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

CPC, 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 CPC, it was held

CS (OS) No. 1226/1999                                       Page 5 of 6
 that since one of the properties was situated in Delhi, the suit was

maintainable at Delhi.

10.    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.

11.    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.

12.    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.

13.    List before the Joint Registrar on 1st December, 2011 for

plaintiffs' evidence.




                                                 A.K. PATHAK, J.

August 30, 2011 rb