The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the court over properties situated in different locations and the absence of objection to jurisdiction before the settlement of issues would not be fatal.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff had filed a Suit No. 619 of 1997 against the defendant-respondents for declaration of ownership and title as well as injunction in respect of the suit property one of which is situated at Muzaffarnagar and the other at Delhi on the basis of a Will executed on 21st june. 1994 by late Srnt. Vimla Jain. The defendants had admitted the claim of the plaintiff in the written statement and as well as the Will as genuine. In this appeal, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendants to the extent that they are not disputing the ownership of the plaintiff and are agreeable that the property in his possession may be retained by him. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Ravi Agarwal submits that Delhi property is in the possession of the plaintiff while the plaintiff has l/5th share in the Muzaffarnagar property in respect whereof the defendants-respondents have no objection.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M. C. Gupta submits that the trial court had decreed the suit in part only in respect of the Muzaffarnagar property declaring 1/5th share in the said property and excluded the property at Delhi on the ground that the Court did not have any jurisdiction over the said property though however, no issue as to jurisdiction was ever framed. In such circumstances, according to him, the suit should have been decreed fully.

( 3 ) AFTER having heard both the counsel for the parties, it appears that the suit should have been decreed on admission.

( 4 ) BE that as it may, Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires institution of every suit in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Clause (b) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil procedure prescribes that a suit for partition of immovable property, subject to the pecuniary and other limitations, is to be instituted in a Court in whose local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate. Similarly, clause (d) of Section 16 requires institution of a suit subject to same limitations for determination of any other right to. or interest in, immovable property within the local limits of Jurisdiction of such court where the property is situated. Such property Is deemed to be a property situated in India. The present case being a suit for partition and declaration of interest in respect of two properties situated at two different places within the local limits of two different Courts could not be covered or governed by Section 16. Such a situation is governed by section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 17 prescribes a suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property situate within the Jurisdiction of different Courts may be instituted in any one of the Courts within the local limits of jurisdiction of which any portion of the property is situate. However, the same is subject to the competence of the Court with regard to valuation. In cases where the local limits of Court is uncertain, then also after recording the statement of uncertainty, such suit may be permitted to be filed in any one of the Courts having territorial jurisdiction.

( 5 ) THUS, a suit in respect of property situated within the local limits of jurisdiction of two different Courts can be instituted in any one of such Court within the jurisdiction whereof any part of the property is situate.

( 6 ) THIS question has since been conclusively determined that institution of a suit in any one of such Court having jurisdiction would enable the Court to pronounce the Judgment in respect of whole of the property including those outside its jurisdiction as was held in the case Nilkanth balwant Natu and others v. Vidya Narasinh Bharathi Swami and others, AIR 1930 PC 188. Ramdhin and others v. Thakuran Dulaiya and others, AIR 1952 Nag 303 (FB), Kubra Jan v. Ram bali and another, 1908 XXX ILR 560 (FB) and Smt. Janki Devi v. Mannilal and others, AIR 1975 All 91 (DB ). The section is intended for the benefit of Suitor and to prevent the multiplicity of suit