This is an exception to the general rule that a suit for immovable property must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. The exception is intended to make it easier for plaintiffs to file suits for immovable property, especially when the property is situated in multiple jurisdictions.
Here are some examples of suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts:
- A suit for the recovery of immovable property situated in two or more districts.
- A suit for the partition of immovable property situated in two or more states.
- A suit for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property situated in two or more districts.
- A suit for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property situated in two or more states.
- A suit for compensation for wrong to immovable property situated in two or more districts.
It is important to note that the plaintiff must also ensure that the court in which the suit is filed has the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the suit. The pecuniary jurisdiction of a court is the maximum amount of money that the court can award in a decree. If the value of the subject-matter of the suit exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, the court will not be able to hear the suit.
Here are some case laws on suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts Section 17 of CPC:
- Union of India v. M.L. Roy ([1989] 2 SCC 722): The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to suits for immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different districts, even if the property is owned by the government.
- Smt. Kamla Rani v. Sardar Bhagwant Singh ([1976] 3 SCC 940): The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of CPC, 1908 applies to suits for partition of immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different states.
- B.S. Narasingaraja v. B.S. Ramakrishna Raja ([2004] 3 SCC 185): The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to suits for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different districts.
- S.S. Ahluwalia v. Smt. Sushila Paul ([1993] 3 SCC 445): The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to suits for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of two or more states.
- Shankarlal v. Vasantlal ([2011] 1 SCC 440): The Supreme Court held that Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies to suits for compensation for wrong to immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of two or more districts.
In addition to the above case laws, the Supreme Court has also held that the expression “any portion of the property” occurring in Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should be interpreted liberally. This means that a plaintiff can file a suit for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts in any of those courts, even if only a small portion of the property is situated within the jurisdiction of that court.
For example, in the case of Shiv Shanker Mishra v. BAB Vishwanath Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (CD No. 1702 of 2011), the Supreme Court held that a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable property situated in two districts could be filed in either of those districts, even if only a small portion of the property was situated within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit was filed.
The Supreme Court has further held that the plaintiff is not required to obtain the consent of the defendant before filing a suit for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts in any of those courts. The plaintiff is also not required to give any reasons for filing the suit in a particular court.
The Supreme Court has also held that Section 17 of CPC, 1908 is mandatory and cannot be waived by the parties. This means that if a plaintiff files a suit for immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts in a court that does not have jurisdiction, the court has a duty to strike out the suit.