IMPORTANT POINT
Suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction where suit properties are situated within territorial jurisdiction of Court.

Sanjay Karol, C.J.—Challenge, limited in nature, laid by the plaintiff-appellants is with regard to the findings returned by the trial Judge, holding him not to have any jurisdiction to partition the properties outside the territorial limits of Agartala, notwithstanding the fact that the suit, inter alia, pertained to the partitioning of immovable properties situated both within and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Tripura.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition of joint properties, both immovable as specified in Schedule-A and movable properties as specified in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is not in dispute that in the said Schedule, two of such properties are situate in Kolkata, description whereof is unambiguously clear, for in the written statement, in response to para-13 and 14 of the plaint, there is no categorical denial of such fact. In fact, pleaded “that the Baguihati properties are in the State of West Bengal outside the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.”

3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Judge framed the following issues:—

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree for partition of joint property as prayed?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get one fourth share each?

4. To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?”

4. While answering issue No.(1) as also issue Nos.(2) & (3), trial Judge, with respect to the immovable properties situate in Kolkata, has returned the following findings:—

“The landed property situated at Kolkata, West Bengal, cannot be divided and partitioned because of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

There are lands of Kolkata and only mentioning of Go-downs at Gol Bazar, Agartala, which cannot be partitioned because of ambiguity of the description of the suit land as well as bar of territorial jurisdiction as some flats are situated even outside of our State.”

5. Insofar as the description of the property situate in Kolkata is concerned, as already observed, there is no ambiguity, in fact, for elucidation the property as described in the Schedule is reproduced as under:—

“(b) A flat situated at Raghunathpur, Baguiati, P.O. Jengra, Kolkata-59, West Bengal in the apartment name Sankhanir Apartment purchased from the joint property fund.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

(e) A flat on the first floor measuring 629 Sq.ft. with common area of 198 Sq.ft. in total 827 Sq.ft. situated and lying at the building “ARVIND TOWER” being portion of premises 242/1B, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Kolkata-700004, P.S.-Burtolla in the name of deceased father Santosh Chandra Paul.”

6. Insofar as the jurisdictional issue is concerned, one notices that the trial Judge failed to take note of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under:—

“17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.—Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.”

7. The provisions are unambiguously clear and the law is well settled.

In (Velugubantla) Papamma vs. Ravula Ramaswami and Another, AIR 1933 Madras 622, while dealing with the case where the property, subject matter of mortgage, was shifted from place A to place B and in relation thereto plaintiff filed a suit at place B, the Court held the suit to be maintainable in view of Section 17 of CPC.

In Nrisingha Charan Nandy Choudhury vs. Rajniti Prasad Singh and others, AIR 1936 Privy Council 189, the Court clarified that Section 17 can be utilized only if the Code applies to both the Courts.

In Laxmibai vs. Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni