1955 Supreme(Mad) 60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Mack and Mr. Justice Krishnaswami Nayudu, JJ.
R.M.N. Ramanathan Chettiar
Versus
Narayanan Chettiar minor
Appeal No. 745 of 1954.
Decided On : 01 March 1955
M.S.Venkatarama Ayyar and T.V.Balakrishnan for Appellant.
A.Sundaram Ayyar for Respondent.
Extent of jurisdiction of Court in trial of the suit.
Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure. 1908-Section 16(b) -Jurisdiction of Court in trial of suit filed for partition of joint family property situated partly in India and partly abroad.
Under section 16(b) of the Civil Procedure Code a suit for the partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. There is, however, an important proviso that a suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property held by the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. I would in connection with this type of suit against a manager by a member of the family emphasise the clause in this proviso “where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience”. In the present case the first defendant is a resident of India, was served in India, and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga. As it appears to me, it is a case where the relief sought by the plaintiffs can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience in respect of the entire joint family property whether situated in India or abroad.
Rule 20 in Dicey’s Conflict of Laws, 6th Edition, page 141, is to the effect that a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the determination of the title to, or the right to the possession of, any immovable situate in foreign territory is now well established and followed in Indian case law, though its precise scope is still open, as Dicey himself observed, to some doubt. This rule is subject to an exception on the ground either of (a) a contract between the parties to the action; or (b) an equity between such parties in cases where the parties themselves, as in the present case, are within the Court’s jurisdiction. It by no means follows, therefore, that all property having a foreign origin is outside the jurisdiction of a British Court for all purposes. This has been laid down in Kashinath v. Anant1, in which Jenkins, C.J., reproduced the dictum of Lord Selborne in Ewing v. Orr Ewing2, quoted by my learned brother in his judgment. The effect of that decision was that the jurisdiction of the Courts in India should be governed and ascertained by the same principles except so far as they may be at variance with legislative enactment.
Now an action for partition of joint family property within a Hindu coparcenary is one unkn