2019 Supreme(SC) 122

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Shivnarayan (D) By Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1052 of 2019
Decided On : 06-02-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
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”.
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.
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 properties are situated provided suit is based on same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in jurisdiction of different courts.

Headnote:(a) General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 13 – “Words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa” – Applies to section 17, CPC – Held, word “property” used in Section 17 can be more than one property or properties – In a schedule of plaint, more than one property can be included and section 17 can be applied even in case of several properties, one or more of which may be located in different jurisdiction of courts – Word “portion of the property” 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 – 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 – However, this is subject to the condition that cause of action for filing the suit regarding property situated in different jurisdiction is one and the same. (Para 10, 11, 21)

       AIR 1930 PC 188; AIR 1936 PC 189; AIR 1932 PC 172 – Relied upon

       AIR 1923 Cal. 501; (1908) ILR 30 All. 560; AIR 1952 Nag. 303 (Full Bench); AIR 1960 Ori. 159; AIR 1968 Kant. 82; AIR 1972 Delhi 90; AIR 1975 All. 91; AIR 1932 PC 172; AIR 1942 All. 387; AIR 1975 All. 91 – Cited with approval

       (b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 17 r/w section 39(1)(c) and section 20 – Suit may be filed with regard to immovable property situated outside the local limit of jurisdiction of the Court – Parties have discretion not to file one suit with regard to immovable property situated in local jurisdiction of more than one court as in case of partial partition where parties agree to keep some property joint and get partition of some of the properties – However, in passing such decree the court should also have regard to other circumstances like section 20 where decree can be passed against the defendant whose property may situate in local jurisdiction of local limits of more than one Court. (Para 23, 24)

       (c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 17 – Instantly, suit filed by the plaintiff for Indore property as well as Bombay property was based on different causes of action – both cause of action could not have been clubbed together in a single suit. (Para 29)

       (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II Rule 2 – Cause of action – Means one cause of action – Every suit shall include whole of the claim on the basis of a cause of action – Does not permit clubbing of different cause of action. (Para 30)

       (e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II Rule 3 – Cause of action – Rule 3 permits to unite several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly in the same suit – Not applicable if suit is not against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly as in the present case. (Para 30)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant filed Civil Suit for declaring various transfer documents as null and void with regard to suit property. Plaintiff also prayed for declaration that suit properties are Joint Family Property of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and plaintiff is entitled to receive 1/3rd part of the suit property. A Will executed by one Lt. Smt. Vimal Vaidya was also sought to be declared to be null and void. Certain other reliefs were claimed in the suit.

       The trial court allowed the application.

       Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, a writ petition was filed in the High Court, which too has been dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       The trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the defendant Nos.7 and 8. The High court did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the trial court.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.