Delhi High Court
Capt Shashi Mohan Puri vs Foxtrot Megastructures Pvt Ltd & ... on 28 May, 2015
10
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1654/2015 & I.As. 11862-11863/2015
CAPT SHASHI MOHAN PURI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vivek Vidyarthi, Advocate.
versus
FOXTROT MEGASTRUCTURES PVT LTD & ORS ..... Defendants
Through: None.
% Date of Decision: 28th May, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present suit has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) pass a decree for cancellation of the following documents
and declare them as null and void ab-initio, not binding upon
the plaintiffs in any manner:-
Conveyance deed registered as document no.16,125, Book
No.1, volume No.12,970 at page no.47 a copy of which is in
Addl. Book No.1, volume No.1,564, page No.30 & 31 dated
06.09.2011 with the Sub-Registrar, Gurgaon;
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants, thereby restraining the
Defendants, their heirs, assignees, representatives, agents,
associates, servants, workers, etc. from creating any further
third party interest in the suit property i.e. Commercial Office
space bearing No.512, having its super area of 1241.69 Sq. Ft.
(115.35 Sq. Mtrs.) of office space comprised in 5th floor, Block-
A, along with one car parking slot in the said multi-storeyed
commercial complex known as „Business Zone‟ and the
defendants be further restrained from upsetting the equitable
constructive possession of the plaintiffs from the suit shop;
c) award cost of the suit in favour of plaintiffs and against
the defendants;
d) any other relief which the Hon‟ble Court may deem fit
and necessary, in the circumstances of the case."
2. At the outset, this Court put the learned counsel for the plaintiff to
notice that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present suit as cancellation of Conveyance Deed has been sought of a
property situated in Gurgaon. It was also pointed out to learned counsel for
plaintiff that permanent injunction had been sought with regard to another
property situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3. However, learned counsel for plaintiff insists that this Court has the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. He firstly states that no
relief of possession has been sought in the present proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for plaintiff further states that even after execution of
sale deed, no transfer of title had taken place in favour of the defendants. In
support of his submissions, he relies upon the following judgments of this
Court:-
A. Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd., CS(OS)
1138/2004 wherein it has been held as under:-
"28. I need not, therefore, deal with the various
decisions of this court and other High Courts relied upon by
counsel for the defendants for the reason that the decision of
the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronic‟s case (Supra) holds
the field. The said decision has taken into account Section
22 of the Specific Relief Act. Decision categorically hold
that a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to
sell simplicitor even if it relates to immovable property is
not a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title or to
land. The suit is for enforcement of terms of contract.
Decision categorically holds that it is at the option of the
plaintiff to seek delivery of possession. Decision
categorically holds that unless possession of immovable
property is specifically prayed for, suit could be instituted
within the local limits of the court having jurisdiction where
the defendant resides, carries on business or personally
works for gain."
B. Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 698
wherein it has been held as under:-
"19. We cannot also accept the contention of Mr Chitale
that the suit is for acquisition of title to the land and is a
"suit for land". In its true sense, a suit simpliciter for
specific performance of contract for sale of land is a suit for
enforcement of terms of contract. The title to the land as
such is not the subject-matter of the suit.
20. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in
the order of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
under challenge. The appeal is dismissed but in the
circumstances of the case, without costs."
C. Mrs. Bhawna Seth vs. DLF Universal & Anr., AIR 2007 Delhi 189
wherein it has been held as under:-
"18. The proviso is thus an exception to the main part
of the section which in our considered opinion, cannot be
interpreted or construed to enlarge the scope of the
principal provision. It would apply only if the suit falls
within one of the categories specified in the main part of the
section and the relief sought could entirely be obtained by
personal obedience of the defendant."
5. In the opinion of this Court, all the three judgments referred to and
relied upon by the learned counsel for plaintiff deal with the cases of
specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property. Since, the
present case is not for specific performance of any agreement to sell, the
case law referred to is inapplicable to the facts herein.
6. This Court is also of the view that the judgment in the present case
cannot be enforced through the personal obedience of the defendants.
7. It is further settled law that all rights over or in relations to immovable
land are governed by the law where the immovable property is situated (Lex
Situs) and the lis has to be determined by the Court which has the territorial
jurisdiction over the land.
8. This Court is not in agreement with the submission of learned counsel
for the plaintiff that after execution of sale deed, transfer of title had not
taken place in favour of defendants.
9. It is pertinent to mention that the pleadings clearly reveal that it is the
plaintiff's case that after execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the
defendants even actual physical possession had been handed over.
10. In fact, the reliefs as sought and the structure of the plaint clearly
reveal that the reliefs relate to adjudication of title to land and/or immovable
property. Even the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
has held as under:-
"From the above discussion it follows that a suit for land is a suit
in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of
possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a
suit for land or not has to be determined on the averments in the
plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where
the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable
property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable
property, it will be a suit for land......"
(emphasis supplied)
11. In the present case as the Court has to adjudicate upon the title of the
land/immovable property, it is clearly a suit for land.
12. Consequently, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present plaint.
13. Accordingly, present plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff
for re-filing the same in an appropriate Court having the territorial
jurisdiction.
14. Registry is directed to list the similar matter being CS (OS) No.
1208/2015 on 3rd July, 2015.
MANMOHAN, J
MAY 28, 2015
js
