Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BACHAWAT, GUHA RAY, JJ.
Hem Chandra Dev - Appellant
Versus
Dhirendra Chandra Das - Respondent
Decided on : July 06, 1959
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 16(C), 20 - ADMINISTRATION SUIT - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSON - NOT A SUIT FOR DETERMINATION OF RIGHT TO OR INTEREST IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY SUIT IF ANY PART OF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE WITHIN JURISDICTION - ENQUIRY AS TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY INCIDENTAL TO MAIN OBJECT OF SUIT - COURT HAS POWER TO DECIDE QUESTION OF TITLE TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for administration of the estate of Girish Chandra Das by the Court, for accounts and for Receiver during the pendency of the suit. The particulars of the estate were given in a schedule annexed to the plaint. Two items of property were mentioned. The second item was the fish business carried on at Dobson Road, Golabari, in the district of Howrah. The defendants contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The trial court decided the issue in favor of the plaintiff. On revision, the High Court held that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Howrah Court and as such that court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Subsequently, the defendants filed an additional written statement contending that inasmuch as all the properties comprised in the estate were not included in the schedule to the plaint the suit was bad for having asked for partial administration. The trial court allowed the amendment prayed for. The amended plaint mentions only one item of immovable property and that immovable property is situated in Tezpur, Assam. The defendants raised again the preliminary point that the court had no jurisdiction to try this suit having regard to the allegations in the amended plaint. The trial court overruled this objection. The defendants obtained a Rule on the ground that the suit is a suit for determination of a right to, or interest in, immovable property and as such is within the purview of sec. 16 (C) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the proviso to Sec. 16 could have no application in the circumstances of the case and that sec. 20 being subject to sec. 16 the suit must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situated and cannot be instituted in the court where a part of the cause of action arose.
Finding of the Court:
The suit is not a suit for determination of any right to or interest in immovable property. A suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person is not a suit for determination of a right to or interest in immovable property because the estate comprises one item of immovable property which is situated outside the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The cause of action in the suit is the alleged breach of the duty of the executors to administer the estate in due course of law. The court has jurisdiction to try a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person if any part of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In the exercise of such jurisdiction and where necessary the court has power to decide what the estate consists of and for that purpose to decide question of title to immovable property.
Issues: Whether the suit is a suit for determination of a right to or interest in immovable property and as such is within the purview of sec. 16 (C) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person is not a suit for determination of a right to or interest in immovable property because the estate comprises one item of immovable property which is situated outside the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The cause of action in the suit is the alleged breach of the duty of the executors to administer the estate in due course of law. The court has jurisdiction to try a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person if any part of the cause of action arose within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court. In the exercise of such jurisdiction and where necessary the court has power to decide what the estate consists of and for that purpose to decide question of title to immovable property.
Final Decision: The Rule is discharged with costs.
1. THIS Rule is directed against the decision on the preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. The suit was instituted in 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Howrah. The plaintiff claims a decree for administration of the estate of Girish Chandra Das by the Court, for accounts and for Receiver during the pendency of the suit. The particulars of the estate were given in a schedule annexed to the plaint. Two items of property were mentioned. The second item was the fish business carried on at Dobson Road, Golabari, in the district of Howrah. The defendants contended that the court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The trial court decided the issue in favour of the plaintiff. The matter came up on revision to this Court. By a judgment dated January 6, 1953 this Court decided that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Howrah Court and as such that court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court, however, went on to observe:
"had it been a case where the suit was one for the administration of both movable and immovable properties and the Howrah court had jurisdiction over only some item of movable properties, the question might very well arise whether a suit would lie at Howrah at all and whether the Howrah court could administer effectively the immovable properties outside its jurisdiction."
2. SUBSEQUENTLY, the defendants filed an additional written statement contending that inasmuch as all the properties comprised in the estate were not included in the schedule to the plaint the suit was bad for having asked for partial administration. Having regard to this additional written statement, an additional issue on this point was raised.
The trial commenced sometime in 1957. In course of the trial the plaintiff moved a petition for amendment of the plaint by including several items of property in the schedule to the plaint as having been comprised in the estate of the testator. One of the items of property is an immovable property situated at Mahabhairab Kalibari Chak in Tezpur in Assam. By an order dated July 12, 1957 the trial court allowed the amendment prayed for. The amended plaint mentions only one item of immovable property and that immovable property, as I have already stated, is situated in Tezpur, Assam. On December 10, 1957 the defendants raised again the preliminary point that the court had no jurisdiction to try this suit having regard to the allegations in the amended plaint. By its judgment dated December 11, 1957 the trial court overruled this objection. This Rule was obtained on January 14, 1958. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the suit is a suit for determination of a right to, or interest in, immovable property and as such is within the purview of sec. 16 (C) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the proviso to Sec. 16 could have no application in the circumstances of the case and that sec. 20 being subject to sec. 16 the suit must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situated and cannot be instituted in the court where a part of the cause of action arose.
3. NOW, the proviso to sec. 16 clearly does not apply because all the defendants do not reside or carry on business or personally work for again within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Howrah Court. Again, sec. 20 is clearly subject to sec. 16 and if the suit were for determination of a right to or interest in immovable property, the suit must be instituted in the appropriate forum in Assam. We have come to the conclusion that the suit is not a suit for determination of any right to or interest in immovable property.
4. ON behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed on a decision of the Lahore High Court in Shibram v. Prahlad Rai, (1) A. I. R. 1926 Lahore 503. If and in so far that decision decides that a suit for administration of the estate of a deceased person is a suit for determination of a right to or interest in
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
