BEGUM SAHIBA SULTAN versus NAWAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 12-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

._ 
.A 
BEGUM SAHIBA SUL TAN 
~ 
v. 
NA WAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN AND ORS. 
APRIL 12, 2007 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 0. Vii R.10; Ss. 16 and 20: 
~ 
c 
Suit for partition-Property lay beyond jurisdiction of trial Court-
Trial Court returning the plaint to plaintiff for filing in the Court of 
appropriate jurisdiction-Affirmed by the High Court- On appeal, Held: At 
the stage of consideration of the return of the plaint in terms of provisions 
under 0. VII R. I 0 CPC, the plaint and the averment therein must be looked 
into-It is also necessary to read the plaint in a meaning/ii/ manner to 
D ascertain the real intention of the plaintiff-The suit in question is essentially 
for the relief of partition and declaration in respect of the properties situated 
in a village at Gurgaon, which is outside the jurisdiction of the High Court 
',.. 
of Delhi-Besides, negative declaration sought for by the plaintiff appears 
to be totally superfluous and unnecessary-In the facts and circumstances of 
E 
the case, the present suit could not be brought within the purview. of the 
proviso to S.16 of the Code or entertained relying on S.20 of the Code on 
the basis that three out of the five defendants are residing within the 
jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi. 
Appellant filed a civil suit before the High Court of Delhi praying for 
F 
declaration of the oral Will allegedly made by her mother was never made 
and to declare the sale deed purported to have been executed by defendant No.2 
in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 null and void in respect of certain 
properties in question and to pass a decree of partition in terms of Islamic 
Personal Law. The properties in question situated at Gurgaon, District 
Haryana, are outside the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi in which the 
G suit was instituted. Single Judge of the High Court holding that since the 
properties in question situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi, 
the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, he 
( 
directed return of the plaint to appellant for presenting it to the Court having 
jurisdiction over the properties in question. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an 
~ 
H 
36 
BEGUM SAHIBA SULT AN '· NAWAB MOHD. MANSUR ALI KHAN 
37 
appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence A 
the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the substantial prayer in the plaint was for a 
declaration that the oral Will dated 1.1.1995 allegedly made by the mother 
was never made and the cause of action for that relief wholly arose in Delhi 
within the jurisdiction of the trial court; that the other reliefs of partition, B 
accounting and declaration of invalidity of the sale executed by defendant No.2 
were all reliefs that would flow only if the relief regarding the declaration of 
Will was granted to the plaintiff and consequently, those reliefs could be 
perceived to be only consequential reliefs; that even if Section 16(a) and (d) 
C.P.C. had application, it was a case to which the proviso to Section 16 of the C 
Code applied, especially in the context of the fact that at least three of the 
defendants were residing within the jurisdiction of the trial court, therefore, 
the decision to return the plaint was unsustainable in law. 
Respondents submitted that in pith and substance, the plaint was for 
partition of the properties situated in Village Pataudi in Gurgaon that lay D 
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Delhi and when that is so, 
the suit had to be instituted only in the court having jurisdiction over the 
'-. 
property in question and the High Court was right in holding that Section 
16(b) and (d) of the Code squarely applied to the case on hand in the light of 
the reliefs claimed; that the proviso to Section 16 of the Code has no 
application, since this was not a case where mere personal obedience to the E 
decree would result in an effective decree; that Section 20 of the Code will 
have no application in a case where Section 16 squarely applies, since Section 
20 was only a residuary provision; and that the High Court has understood 
the plaint in a particular manner and since an effective decree for partition, 
which is the main relief claimed in the plaint, could more conveniently be F 
_1 
passed by the court having jurisdiction over the properties in question; and 
that it was not a fit case where this Court ough

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.