HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI versus D.L.F., UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 26-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARSHAD CHIMAN LAL MODI 
A 
v. 
D.L.F., UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDC.K. THAKKER,JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Section 16( d)-Place of suing-Institution of suit where subject-matter 
is situate-Proper Court-Suit for specific performance and possession of C 
immovable property-Plaintiff entered into a 'plot-buyer agreement' with the 
defendant for purchase of a residential plot situate at place 'G '-Agreement 
was made in place 'D' as Head Office of defendant was located at 'D'-
Plaintiff paid some instalments at 'D '-Defendant cancelled the agreement 
on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid dues towards construction of D 
Modular House to defendant No. 2-Plaintiff filed a suit in High Court at 
'D 'for declaration, specific performance of the agreement, for possession of 
property and for permanent injunction-A Single Judge granted interim 
injunction in favour of plaintiff-Jurisdiction of High Court at 'D' was 
clearly admitted in the written statement-In view of increase in pecuniary 
jurisdiction of District Court at 'D' suit was transferred from High Court to, E 
District Court at 'D '-Trial court framed issues which did not include issue 
as to jurisdiction of the court because jurisdiction of the court was not 
disputed by defendants-Subsequently, defendants filed an application for 
amendment in the written statement by raising an objection as to jurisdiction 
of the Court at 'D' to entertain the suit-Application was allowed-Plaint p 
was ordered to be returned to plaintiff for presentation to the proper court-
High Court at 'D' affirmed the order-Correctness of-Held: A court within 
whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal 
with and decide .the rights or interests in such property-A court has no 
jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment-
Even if there is an agreement between the parties to the contract, it has no G 
effect and cannot be enforced-Jn the instant case, the Court at 'D' has no 
jurisdiction since the property is not situate within the jurisdiction of that 
Court-The trial court was, therefore, right in passing an order returning the 
plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. 
495 
H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Maxim-"Equity acts in personam. "-Meaning of 
The appellant-plaintiff entered into a 'plot-buyer' agreement with 
respondent No. I-defendant No. 1 for purchase of a residential plot located at 
'G'. The agreement was made at 'D', the Head Office of respondents was 
situated at 'D' and the payment was to be made at 'D'. The appellant also paid 
B some instalments at 'D'. However, respondent No. 1 cancelled the agreement 
on the ground that the appellant had not paid dues towards construction of 
Modular House to respondent No. 2. 
The appellant filed a suit in the High Court at 'D' for declaration, 
C specific performance of the agreement, for possession of the property and for 
permanent injunction. A Single Judge of the High Court at 'D' granted 
interim injunction in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. 
In view of increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court 
at 'D' the suit was transferred from High Court at 'D' to District Court at 
D 'D'. The trial court framed issues which did not include the issue as to the 
jurisdiction of the court because jurisdiction of the court was not disputed by 
the defendants. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application seeking 
amendment in the written statement by raising an objection as to the 
jurisdiction of the District Court at 'D' to entertain the suit. The trial court 
allowed the application and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff 
E for presentation to the proper court. The High Court confirmed the order. 
Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court:-
In which court a suit for specific performance of agreement relating to 
F immovable property would lie? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognizes 
a well established principle that actions against res or property should be 
G brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose 
territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with 
and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court 
has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an

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