Rule of Jurisdiction for Immovable Property-Section – 17, 18
Section- 17 of CPC 1908 deals with the Cases in which the immovable property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of different courts.
When the suit is filed for obtaining the compensation or relief for the wrong caused to immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of two or more courts, the suit may be filed in any court within whose local jurisdiction a portion of the property is situated. But in respect for the value of subject matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such court.
immovable property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of different courts.
CPC Section 18. Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of courts are uncertain.
(1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as if the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction :
Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court is competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court that a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit, no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of justice.
This Provision intends to avoid difficulties regarding jurisdiction that may arise where boundaries of estate are either destroyed or altered by fluvial action.
Uncertainty as to local limits of jurisdiction: Section 18 provides that where there is uncertainty i.e. doubt, as to which court has local jurisdiction over any particular immovable property, the suit may be instituted in any court and may be tried by that court validly, if the court is satisfied that there are grounds for alleged uncertainty.
The court in such cases is required to record a statement of the alleged uncertainty and may try the suit as if the property was situated within the local limits of its jurisdiction. Again, it has to be seen if the court is competent to hear the matter of such value or not i.e. the court must have pecuniary competency. If to the assumption of such jurisdiction there is any objection from the opposite side then it should be raised at the earliest opportunity.
Summary of Sec -16 of CPC
In conclusion, it is property that will determine where a case will be filed. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that an action can be instituted only in a Court where the immovable property is situated. | The place where the dispute took place, the residence of the plaintiff and defendant, etc., will not be considered. These are non-issues because the issue at heart is immovable property. The purpose of this law is also worth considering. | It would be impractical and unfeasible to expect witnesses to travel to another state to testify that they saw the damage to the property being done. Further, if the court had to inspect the property for any reason and had to send someone to inspect the property, they would have to travel all the way to the property. |
No comment