IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sneha Srivastava - Appellant
Versus
Amita Sinha & Ors. - Respondents
CS(OS) 277 of 2021
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Territorial jurisdiction for partition suits is governed by Section 16(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a suit for partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The court also considered the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court referred to various precedents and case laws to interpret the relevant provisions and determine the jurisdiction issue.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the properties of the deceased husband. The defendant sought the return of the plaint on the grounds that the immovable properties were located outside Delhi and the suit was not maintainable in Delhi. The plaintiff claimed that the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and other acts to determine the jurisdiction issue. The court held that the suit for partition of immovable property should be filed in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. Since the immovable properties were located in Greater Noida, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in regard to the immovable properties. However, the court held that the suit for partition in respect of movable properties, such as bank accounts and life insurance policies, was maintainable in Delhi. The court directed the return of the suit in respect of immovable properties with the liberty to file the same before the court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a suit for partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The court also considered the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court referred to various precedents and case laws to interpret the relevant provisions and determine the jurisdiction issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for partition of immovable property should be filed in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in regard to the immovable properties located in Greater Noida. However, the court held that the suit for partition in respect of movable properties, such as bank accounts and life insurance policies, was maintainable in Delhi.
Result: The court directed the return of the suit in respect of immovable properties with the liberty to file the same before the court of appropriate jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds, including lack of jurisdiction and suppression of material facts.
JUDGMENT
I.A.14079/2021 (Seeking Return of Plaint)
1. An application under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') has been filed on behalf of defendant No.1 seeking return of plaint.
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Partition, Declaration, Cancellation, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in respect to the property of the deceased husband Late Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha and the matter is at the stage of completion of pleadings. The suit is in respect of various immovable properties and also in respect of movable properties. It is asserted that in terms of Section 16 of the CPC, a suit for partition can be filed only where the immovable property is situated. However, the properties in respect of which the partition is sought are located in Greater Noida. Since, no part of the immovable properties are situated in Delhi, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit in regard to the immovable properties.
3. In respect of movable properties, it is submitted that none of the defendant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No.1 is a permanent resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan, where he is staying with his daughter. Defendant No.4 is permanently residing at Kaikondanahalli, Bangalore. Defendant No.5 is a resident of Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is claimed that plaintiff has deliberately misrepresented that defendant No.1 is residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, when in fact he is a permanent resident of Jaipur. This Court, therefore, has no territorial jurisdiction and the plaint is liable to be returned.
4. Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that since all the immovable properties are located outside Delhi and all the defendants are also not resident of Delhi, the present suit for partition in respect of movable and immovable properties is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon Rajiv Seth vs. Daya Kishan Mehra (2005) 84 DRJ 75 and Ranjan Kumar Singh vs. Angoori Singh 2010 (116) DRJ 278 in support of his contentions.
5. No formal reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. However, reliance has been placed upon the case of Bhagwan Motiram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishwardas & Ors. AIR 1952 Bombay 365 and Bhagwan Motiram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishwardas & Ors. AIR 1952, to assert that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present partition suit.
6. Submissions heard.
7. The plaintiff Sneha Srivastava has filed a suit for partition, declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff got married to Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha in the year 2016. He died on 14th May, 2021 due to COVID-19. The defendant No.1 Smt. Amita Sinha is the mother while defendant No.4 and 5 are the sisters of deceased Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha. Defendant No.2 is IDFC First Bank while Defendant No.3 is Max Life Insurance Company from which deceased Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha has purchased Term Insurance Policy.
8. It is submitted that Shri Binay Kumar Sinha father of Late Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha died on 18th October, 2017 due to chronic liver disease and complications. Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha was a highly qualified person. He was a Director and shareholder in the Company SR Ecommerce Factory Private Limited which was running an e-commerce company in the name and style of "Bookswagon" located at Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi. Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha was 50% shareholder in the said Company and was handling the business along with the other Director Shubham Jain who was having the remaining 50% share holding in the Company.
9. During the life time Shri Ritesh Kumar Sinha had purchased two flats, the details of which are as under: a. Flat No.1902, 19th Floor, Block T-11 in Ace Divino, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. b. Flat No.3152, 15th Floor, Tower 3, ATS Destinaire, Noida Extension, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
10. Shri Binay Kumar Sinh
Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114
Kenche Gawda vs. Sidde Gawda (1994) 4 SCC 294
Rajiv Seth vs. Daya Kishan Mehra (2005) 84 DRJ 75
Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. vs. Devender Kumar Talwar (2010) 10 SCC 671
Ranjan Kumar Singh vs. Angoori Singh 2010 (116) DRJ 278
Seema Arshad Zahir & Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 282
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for partition of immovable property only if the property is situated within its local limits o....
Territorial jurisdiction in partition suits is satisfied if a portion of the property resides within the court's local limits. Furthermore, nomination in a co-operative society facilitates asset tran....
In partition suits involving adverse possession, procedural adherence is critical; issues of tenancy must be resolved before partition can occur, and failure to provide proper notice invalidates clai....
(1) There is no prohibition for a person from producing, relying upon and claiming a right under a Will, in any proceeding instituted by others including other legal heirs for partition or other reli....
Partition suit involving immovable properties partly outside original jurisdiction requires prior leave under Clause XII Letters Patent; absence renders plaint wholly rejectable under Order VII Rule ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.