Rejection of Plaint-- Territorial Jurisdiction--Dispute pertaining to different properties located at different places within the jurisdiction of different courts--Any illusion created by clever drafting of the plaint is to be buried at the very beginning.

Mr. Rajesh Bindal J.: - Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside of the order dated 24.2.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2- plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 (son of respondent No. 1) are the joint owners and in possession of house bearing No. BE-23 (Paschmi), Shalimaar Bagh, New Delhi and are the joint owners of 1/3rd share in House No. 97 measuring 9 marlas, 252 square feet (45' x 60') situated in Janta Colony, Maqsudan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, comprised in Khasra No. 6/25. Further prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit property and also for separate possession of 1/3rd share belonging to respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 in the suit, pertaining to the property situated at Jalandhar.

3. It is in the said suit that petitioner-defendant No. 1 filed application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the plaint raising an objection that the court at Jalandhar does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit in terms of the provisions of Section 16 CPC. It was stated in the application that there is no dispute pertaining to the property at Jalandhar, as petitioner-defendant No. 1 never disputed the claim of respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs to that effect. As far as the property at Delhi is concerned, the same is his self acquired property. The court at Jalandhar does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit pertaining to the property situated at Delhi. The application having been rejected, the petitioner-defendant No. 1 is before this court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed at Jalandhar by respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs only because they are residents of Hoshiarpur and it was convenient for them. Two causes of action in the suit have no relation with each other. On the one hand, for a share in the joint family property, for which even if there is any contest, the relevant parties would be sons and daughters of the deceased, whose property is to be inherited. On the other hand, the property located at Delhi is registered in the name of the petitioner and is in his exclusive ownership and possession. If there is any dispute pertaining to its ownership or possession, their sister would not be a necessary party in the lis. In fact, there was no dispute pertaining to the property, which is to be inherited by respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 in the suit, who are the legal heirs of deceased-Kanwar Balbir Singh, and the petitioner and respondent No. 4, who are the other son and daughters of deceased-Kanwar Balbir Singh. The dispute is sought to be raised regarding the property at Delhi. Only with a view to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the court at Jalandhar, the facts pertaining to the property located at Jalandhar have been pleaded, which should not be permitted. The impugned order passed by the learned court below is erroneous, as this aspect of the matter has been totally ignored.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2-plaintiffs submitted that when there is a dispute pertaining to different properties located at different places within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit can be filed in any court within the jurisdiction of which any of the properties is situated. In the present case, in the suit, relief has been claimed pertaining to the properties located at Jalandhar and Delhi, hence, the court at Jalandhar has the jurisdiction. In the written statement filed, the petitioner has disputed the claim pertaining to the property located at Jalandhar. However, even if the same is admitted, the court has to try the case pertaining to other reliefs claimed. The p