9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to entertain the suit. 2. Specific performance of the contract for sale of immovable property. 3. Interpretation and application of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act. Detailed Analysis: Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to Entertain the Suit: The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Delhi Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the respondent. The respondent claimed that the Delhi Court has jurisdiction because the corporate office of the defendants is in Delhi, the offer and acceptance of the sale happened in Delhi, and payments were made in Delhi. The respondent sought specific performance of a contract dated 16/20.01.2004 for the sale of commercial property in Gurgaon. The appellants contested this claim, arguing that the suit property is situated in Gurgaon, and the defendants now carry on business in Gurgaon. They asserted that the courts in Gurgaon alone have jurisdiction to try the suit, as the suit property is located there. Specific Performance of the Contract for Sale of Immovable Property: The respondent-plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance, commanding the defendants to transfer the right, title, and interest in the suit premises by executing and registering the sale deed. The respondent did not pray for delivery of possession of the suit property. The appellants argued that a decree for specific performance inherently includes delivery of possession, especially when the possession is with the vendor. Interpretation and Application of Section 16 of the CPC and Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act: The learned Single Judge held that since only a declaration of right and title was sought and not delivery of possession, the Delhi Court had jurisdiction. The Judge distinguished between a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property and a suit where additional relief for delivery of possession is prayed for. The Judge referred to several judgments, including *Sidharth Choudhary v. Mahamaya General Finance*, *Karan Mahendru and Anr. v. Vatika Plantations (P) Ltd.*, *Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and Anr.*, and *Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Ors.* Section 16(d) of the CPC states that suits related to immovable property should be instituted in the court within the local limits where the property is situated. The proviso allows for suits to be instituted where the defendant resides or carries on business if the relief can be entirely obtained through personal obedience. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act allows for additional reliefs like possession to be claimed in suits for specific performance. The Supreme Court in *Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Ors.* held that possession is incidental to specific performance, and the seller must deliver possession upon execution of the sale deed. The Supreme Court in *Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Limited* emphasized that suits involving immovable property must be filed where the property is located. The Delhi High Court, in this case, found that the relief sought could not be entirely obtained through the personal obedience of the defendants, as the execution and registration of the sale deed would have to take place in Gurgaon. Therefore, the proviso to Section 16 CPC was not applicable. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in *Begum Sabiha Sultan v. Nawab Mohd. Mansur Ali Khan and Ors.*, which held that suits involving immovable property outside the court's jurisdiction could not be entertained based on the personal obedience of the defendants. Conclusion: The Delhi High Court concluded that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. The decision of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for filing in the appropriate jurisdiction.
|
