1985 Supreme(All) 415

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
K.N. MISRA, J.
Sardar Autar Singh and Another - Appellant
Versus
Baljit Singh - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 43 of 1983 in Miscellaneous Case No. 110 of 1981
Decided On : 18-02-1985

A suit for partition of immovable property can only be filed in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate, as provided under Section 16(b) of the CPC.

Headnote:

{'KEYWORD': 'JURISDICTION - PARTITION SUIT - IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - MOVABLE PROPERTY - CAUSE OF ACTION - JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION - COURT COMPETENT TO ENTERTAIN SUIT - CPC, 1908 - SECTIONS 16(B), 17, 20(C), 22', 'SUBJECT': 'Jurisdiction of courts in partition suits involving both movable and immovable properties', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['CPC, 1908 - SECTIONS 16(B), 17, 20(C), 22']}

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for partition of movable and immovable properties located in different districts. The immovable property was located in District Barabanki, while the movable properties were located in District Sultanpur. The Plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of District Judge, Sultanpur, claiming that the cause of action arose in Sultanpur. The Defendant-applicants challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the suit should have been filed in the Court of District Judge, Barabanki, where the immovable property was located.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the suit for partition of immovable property could only be filed in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property was situate, as provided under Section 16(b) of the CPC. The Court further held that the provisions of Section 20(c) of the CPC, which allows a suit to be filed in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, would not apply to suits for partition of immovable property. The Court also held that a single suit for partition of both movable and immovable properties could be filed in the Court competent to entertain a suit for partition of immovable property, provided the cause of action for partition of the joint properties was the same.

Issues: 1. Whether a suit for partition of immovable property could be filed in a Court other than the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property was situate? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 20(c) of the CPC would apply to suits for partition of immovable property? 3. Whether a single suit for partition of both movable and immovable properties could be filed in the Court competent to entertain a suit for partition of immovable property?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that a suit for partition of immovable property could only be filed in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property was situate, as provided under Section 16(b) of the CPC. The Court reasoned that the location of the property was part of the cause of action in a suit for partition, and that the provisions of Section 20(c) of the CPC, which allows a suit to be filed in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises, would not apply to suits for partition of immovable property. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Section 20(c) of the CPC would not apply to suits for partition of immovable property. The Court reasoned that the provisions of Section 20(c) were subject to the limitations contained in earlier sections of the CPC, including Section 16(b), which provides that a suit for partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate. 3. The Court held that a single suit for partition of both movable and immovable properties could be filed in the Court competent to entertain a suit for partition of immovable property, provided the cause of action for partition of the joint properties was the same. The Court reasoned that in a suit for partition, all the known joint properties had to be brought in hotchpot for partition, and that a single suit for partition would be competent and not several suits in different courts on the ground of situs of properties sought to be partitioned.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the District Judge, Sultanpur, holding that the suit was maintainable in his Court. The Court directed the District Judge to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for filing it in the Court of District Judge, Barabanki.