LexSHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS. versus MANIKLAL (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
SHIVNARAYAN (D) BY LRS.
v.
MANIKLAL (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
ss. 16, 17 and 39(1)(c); Order II rr. 2 and 3 – Suit before
the Court in Indore – In respect of two properties (One at Indore
and another at Mumbai) – Seeking declaration of Will in favour of
defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as null and void; seeking declaration of sale
deed, in respect of Mumbai property, in favour of defendant Nos. 7
and 8 as null and void; and seeking declaration of transfer
documents in respect of Indore property in favour of defendant
Nos. 9 and 10 as null and void – Application filed by defendant
Nos. 7 and 8 seeking dismissal of suit against them for want of
territorial jurisdiction and for misjoinder of parties and cause of
action – Trial court struck out the pleadings in respect of the property
in Mumbai and relief related thereto, holding that separate cause
of actions cannot be combined in a single suit – High Court upheld
the order of trial court – On appeal, held: Section 16 lays down
general principle that suits are to be instituted where subject-matter
is situated – Section 17 engrafts exception to the general rule that
suit may be instituted in any court within local limits of whose
jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated – The word
‘property’ has to be used as plural i.e. ‘properties’ by virtue of s. 13
of General Clauses Act – The expression ‘only portion of the
property’ can be read as portion of one or more properties situated
in jurisdiction of different courts and can also be read as portion
of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts –
However, there is one rider that suit should be based on same cause
of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of
different courts – In the present case the suit contained three set of
defendants with different cause of action for each set of defendants
for two properties situated in two jurisdictions – Different cause of
action could not have been clubbed together – The suit with regard
to the Mumbai property was not maintainable – Order II, r. 2 cannot
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.
be read in a manner as to permit clubbing of different cause of
action in a suit – Rule 3 of Order II permits clubbing different causes
of action against the same defendant or defendants jointly while in
the present case suit is against different set of defendants –
Therefore, the application filed by defendant Nos. 7 and 8 was
rightly allowed – General Clauses Act, – s. 13.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sections 16 and 17 of the C.P.C. are part of the
one statutory scheme. Section 16 contains general principle that
suits are to be instituted where subject-matter is situate whereas
Section 17 engrafts an exception to the general rule as occurring
in Section 16. [Para 28][21-E-F]
1.2 The word ‘property’ occurring in Section 17 although
has been used in ‘singular’ but by virtue of Section 13 of the
General Clauses Act it may also be read as ‘plural’, i.e.,
“properties”. Section 17 can be applied in event there are several
properties, one or more of which may be located in different
jurisdiction of courts. The word “portion of the property”
occurring in Section 17 has to be understood in context of more
than one property also, meaning thereby one property out of a lot
of several properties can be treated as portion of the property as
occurring in Section 17. Thus, interpretation of word “portion of
the property” cannot only be understood in a limited and
restrictive sense of being portion of one property situated in
jurisdiction of two courts. The expression any portion of the
property can be read as portion of one or more properties situated
in jurisdiction of different courts and can be also read as portion
of several properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts.
[Paras 11, 28(i) and 28(ii)][13-C-D, 21-F-G]
1.3 A suit in respect to immovable property or properties
situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any
court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the
property or one or more properties may be situated. A suit in
respect to more than one property situated in jurisdiction of
different courts can be instituted in a court within local limits of
jurisdiction where one or more propertiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.