Territorial jurisdiction for suits regarding immovable property is determined by the location of the property. When the primary relief is to declare documents involving rights or interests in real estate as null and void, the court having local jurisdiction over the property must adjudicate the matter.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Trial Court whereby the application preferred by the respondents raising an objection as to territorial jurisdiction and seeking return of the plaint came to be allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellants/plaintiffs instituted the suit before this Court being CS(OS) 2022/2015 seeking declaration and consequential reliefs in relation to apartment bearing No. C-1401, Tower-C, in the project “La Lagune”, situated at Gurgaon, Haryana, admeasuring approximately 3160 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). The said suit thereafter came to be transferred to the District Court consequent upon enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction in terms of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 vide order dated 15.02.2016 passed by this Court.

As per the case set up in the plaint and reiterated in the present appeal, the appellants have claimed jurisdiction of Courts at Delhi by contending that suit property was booked with Respondent No.1/developer for a total sale consideration of approximately Rs.2,06,54,280/- and the transaction in question was negotiated through the office of Respondent No.1 situated at Connaught Place, New Delhi. It was also averred that the respondents were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. The appellants further claim that the initial allotment letter in respect of the suit property was issued from the Delhi office of Respondent No.1.

3. The respondents contested the suit and also questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi. It was claimed that no cause of action had arisen in Delhi as Agreement to Sell and other allied documents in favour of respondent no.2 were executed in the State of Haryana. The consequent conveyance deed was executed and registered with the office of Sub Registrar at Gurgaon.

4. By virtue of the impugned order, the Trial Court held that the dispute in question substantially concerned adjudication of rights and interests arising out of transactions relating to immovable property situated at Gurgaon, Haryana and that the principal relief sought by the appellants was declaration that the conveyance deed and allied transfer-related documents in respect of the suit property that were executed at Gurgaon, be declared null and void. The Trial Court further observed that the Agreement, affidavits, indemnity bonds and conveyance deed forming the basis of the dispute had been executed in relation to the Gurgaon property and that any adjudication upon the validity of such documents would necessarily entail determination of rights and interests in immovable property situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Consequently, the Trial Court held that the Courts at Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly directed return of the plaint for presentation before the Court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assails the impugned order by reiterating the same contentions. Additionally, it is contended that the appellants have claimed that in the intervening night of 17/18.04.2014 while the appellant was on his way to IGI Airport, he was made to sign the ATS and allied documents. It is argued that the aforesaid facts constituted material parts of the cause of action and were sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Delhi Courts. It is argu