Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Gangubai W/o. Laxman Nawale – Appellant
Versus
Hemant S/o. Harendra Nanawati – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8219 of 2023
Decided on : 20-02-2024
Territorial Jurisdiction - Specific Performance of Contract - Section 16, 18, 20 of Civil Procedure Code - The court discussed the provisions of Section 16, 18, and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code and their applicability in determining the territorial jurisdiction for a suit for specific performance of a contract. The court highlighted the importance of the location of the immovable property and the relief sought in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale and perpetual injunction in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad. The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the court, stating that the suit property was situated in Vaijapur and not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Aurangabad.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit property was situated in Vaijapur and, as per Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, the suit for specific performance should be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The Court also emphasized that the relief sought in the suit could not be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant, thus ruling out the application of the proviso to Section 16.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit for specific performance of the contract executed at Aurangabad for the immovable property situated at Vaijapur would lie before the Civil Court at Aurangabad or before the Civil Court at Vaijapur.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 16, 18, and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code to determine the appropriate jurisdiction for the suit. It emphasized that the location of the immovable property and the nature of the relief sought were crucial factors in deciding the territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the trial Court's order, ruling that the Civil Judge Senior Division at Aurangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit for specific performance of the contract. The Writ Petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1] By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Civil judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No. 66/2021 whereby the Court was pleased to hold that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and directed transfer of the suit to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Vaijapur.
Brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition can be summarized as under :
2] The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad for specific performance of contract of sale dated 17.01.2019 in respect of the suit property and for perpetual injunction, restraining defendants from creating third party interest in the suit property, so also to restrain defendants from creating disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The agreement to sell [Isar Pawati] dated 17.01.2019 was executed between parties at Aurangabad. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1990 on the basis of an earlier agreement to sell and a fresh agreement of sale was executed on 17.01.2019 for sale of suit property at enhanced consideration. It is stipulated in the agreement dated 17.01.2019 that the plaintiffs had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the defendants as part consideration and remaining amount is of Rs.19,70,000/-which the plaintiffs has to pay to the defendants. The plaintiffs got information on 07.02.2021 that the defendants have obtained heirship certificate and that the defendants are trying to transfer the suit property to a third person. As such, the plaintiffs filed a suit for above relief.
3] Thereafter, the defendants appeared in the suit and filed an application for framing the preliminary issues regarding maintainability of the suit and jurisdiction of the court vide Exh.12. The defendants raised objection that the suit property is immovable property which is situated at village Akoli Wadgaon within the jurisdiction of civil court at Vaijapur and the plaintiffs have filed suit for specific performance of contract at Aurangabad.
4] The defendants also filed an application below Exh.26 for dismissal of the suit for non compliance of the legal provisions, as the defendants are deaf and dumb. The application Exh.26 came to be decided and the Superintendent of Administration, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad came to be appointed as Guardian for the defendants.
5] The application [Exh. 12] came to be decided on 25.02.2022 and partly allowed and accordingly issue regarding the jurisdiction came to be framed.
6] While deciding the issue of jurisdiction, the Civil Court observed that the agreement to sell dated 17.03.1991 came to be executed by the Chandrakalabai Vishwanathdas Bhatiya in favour of Gangadhar Gopalrao Nawale regarding the suit property. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Gangadharrao Gopalrao Nawale and in the 7/12 extract of the suit property the name of Gangadhar is shown in the said suit as ‘Bhogwatadar’. The fresh agreement to sell dated 17.01.2019 came to be executed between the plaintiffs and defendants and Rs.20,00,000/- as enhanced consideration amount was agreed between the parties.
7] The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 17.01.2019 which has been executed between the plaintiffs and defendants at Aurangabad. However, the suit property is situated at village Wadgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad and within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court and not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Aurangabad. In view of the provisions of Section 16 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, the suit for specific performance is required to be instituted in whose jurisdiction the suit property is situated. As such, by the impugned order dated 02.02.2023 the suit is transferred to Civil Judge Senior Division at Vaijapur. B
A suit for specific performance regarding immovable property must be filed in the jurisdiction where the property is located, as per Section 16 of the CPC.
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
Agreement to sell – Even if suit for specific performance is decreed without specific decree for transfer of possession of suit property, same can be enforced only when trial court directs defendants....
Jurisdiction over immovable property cannot be altered by agreement; the local court where the property is situated retains jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The sale deed for the property did not require permission from the Collector, and the suit was maintainable without a declaration of title.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
