2005 Supreme(SC) 1248

2005(6) Supreme 634
Court of India
(From Delhi High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker, JJ.
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi —Appellant
versus
D.L.F., Universal Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2726 of 2000
Decided on 26-9-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. V. Mohana, Ms. Liz Mathew and Zubin Pratap, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon and Ms. Ekta Kapil, Advocates.

Important point
When the suit was for specific performance of agreement and possession of immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Court, the Delhi Courts will have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Sections 15 to 20—Jurisdiction of Delhi Civil Courts—Suit for specific performance of agreement relating to immovable property—Forum for institution of such suits—Under Section 16 of the Code, a suit can be instituted where the property is situate—Even if there is an agreement between the parties to the contract, it has no effect and cannot be enforced.

       Held : Sections 15 to 20 of the Code contain detailed provisions relating to jurisdiction of courts. They regulate forum for institution of suits. They deal with the matters of domestic concern and provide for the multitude of suits which can be brought in different courts. (Para 12)

       Section 16 thus recognizes a well established principle that actions against res or property should be 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 effective judgment. Proviso to Section 16, no doubt, states that though the court cannot, in case of immovable property situate beyond jurisdiction, grant a relief in rem still it can entertain a suit where relief sought can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant. The proviso is based on well known maxim “equity acts in personam, recognized by Chancery Courts in England. Equity Courts had jurisdiction to entertain certain suits respecting immovable properties situated abroad through personal obedience of the defendant. The principle on which the maxim was based was that courts could grant relief in suits respecting immovable property situate abroad by enforcing their judgments by process in personam, i.e. by arrest of defendant or by attachment of his property. (Para 13)

       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. (Para 15)

       Plain reading of Section 20 of the Code leaves no room of doubt that it is a residuary provision and covers those cases not falling within the limitations of Sections 15 to 19. The opening words of the section “Subject to the limitations aforesaid” are significant and make it abundantly clear that the section takes within its sweep all personal actions. A suit falling under Section 20 thus may be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain or cause of action wholly or partly arises. (Para 18)

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 16—Jurisdiction of Delhi Civil Court—Suit for specific performance of agreement relating to immovable property—Property situated in Gurgaon, Haryana—Appellant entered into a ‘plot buyer agreement’ with DLF Universal Limited, respondent 1 for purchase of a residential plot in Gurgaon—Agreement was in the Standard Form Contract of 1st respondent—Head Office of respondent 1 was situated in Delhi—Payment was to be made in Delhi—Appellant paid an amount of Rs. 12,974/- towards the first instalment—Inspite of payment of amount, 1st respondent cancelled the agreement on ground that appellant had not paid dues towards construction of Modular House to DLF Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.—Appellant filed suit in High Court of Delhi for declaration, specific performance of the agreement, for possession of property and for permanent injunction—In view of increase in pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court, Delhi, suit was transferred to trial Court—Respondents raised objection as to jurisdiction of Delhi Court after more than eight years of filing of suit—Whether Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit—(No).

       Held : The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity. (Para 27)

       The case on hand relates to specific performance of a contract and possession of immovable property. Section 16 deals with such cases and jurisdiction of competent court where such suits can be instituted. Under the said provision, a suit can be instituted where the property is situate. No court other than the court where the property is situate can entertain such suit. Hence, even if there is an agreement between the parties to the contract, it has no effect and cannot be enforced. (Para 31)

       In the instant case, Delhi Court 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. Hence, even though the plaintiff is right in submitting that the defendants had agreed to the jurisdiction of Delhi Court and in the original written statement, they had admitted that Delhi Court had jurisdiction and even after the amendment in the written statement, the paragraph relating to jurisdiction had remained as it was, i.e. Delhi Court had jurisdiction, it cannot take away the right of the defendants to challenge the jurisdiction of the court nor it can confer jurisdiction on Delhi Court, which it did not possess. Since the suit was for specific performance of agreement and possession of immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Court, the trial court was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction. (Para 34)