Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate – Section 16 of CPC deals with the place of institution of suits. The section states that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits for the following causes of action shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:
-
- Recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits.
-
- Partition of immovable property.
- Foreclosure, sale, or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property.
- Determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property.
- Compensation for wrong to immovable property.
- Recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment.
The rationale behind this provision is that the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate is the best placed court to adjudicate upon disputes relating to that property. This is because the court would be familiar with the local laws and customs relating to property, and would also be in a better position to inspect the property and assess the evidence.
However, there are a few exceptions to the general rule that suits relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. For example, a suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property can also be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Another exception is that if the defendant resides outside of India, the suit can be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides or carries on business.
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to show that the court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. If the plaintiff fails to prove jurisdiction, the suit may be dismissed.
Here are some examples of how Section 16 of CPC has been applied in practice:
- In the case of State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh (AIR 1994 SC 672), the Supreme Court of India held that a suit for the recovery of immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.
- In the case of Ramachandra v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 SC 2501), the Supreme Court of India held that a suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property can also be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
- In the case of R v. Matthews ([1980] 71 Cr App R 280), the House of Lords held that a suit for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.
Here are some case laws on Section 16 of CPC:
- State of Punjab v. Kartar Singh (AIR 1994 SC 672): The Supreme Court of India held that a suit for the recovery of immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The Court held that this rule is intended to prevent forum shopping and to ensure that disputes are resolved by the court that is best placed to adjudicate upon them.
- Ramachandra v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 SC 2501): The Supreme Court of India held that a suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property can also be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain. The Court held that this exception is intended to provide convenience to the plaintiff, especially if the defendant is not resident within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.
- R v. Matthews ([1980] 71 Cr App R 280): The House of Lords held that a suit for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The Court held that this rule is necessary to ensure that the property is kept in a safe place and to prevent it from being removed from the jurisdiction of the court.
These are just a few examples of how Section 16 of the CPC has been applied in practice. The courts have consistently held that the rule that suits relating to immovable property must be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate is a mandatory rule, and that any departure from this rule would be a jurisdictional error.
However, the courts have also recognized that there are certain exceptions to this rule, such as the exception for suits for compensation for wrong to immovable property. These exceptions are intended to provide convenience to the plaintiff or to protect the interests of the parties involved.