In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction, the High Court held that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 16 CPC as reliefs depended on the defendant's personal obedience. Finding no error of law in the lower courts, the appeal was dismissed.
Second appeal dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 03.01.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.97 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
1.Chitra Bhakthavatsalam 2.Bhakthavatsalam (deceased)
3.Prabu 4.Yogesh .. Appellants Vs. Sithi Fareetha .. Respondent
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, II Fast Track Court at Chennai dismissing A.S.No.604 of 2008, confirming the judgment and decree order dated 16.07.2008 passed by the V Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai allowing the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.6598 of 2005 and to set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Mohan For Respondent : Mr.A.N.F.Mohammed Iqbal
2
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.604 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, II Fast Track Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008 passed in O.S.No.6598 of 2005 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
3
the agreement of sale dated 19.10.2002 expiring on 20.03.2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction, directing the first defendant to return the title deeds of the suit property registered as document No.1202 of 1993 dated 21.01.1993 on the file of the Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Ambattur to the plaintiff.
4
Chennai. According to the defendants, the City Civil Court, Chennai, has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code for laying the suit in the City Civil Court, Chennai.
5
defence put forth by the defendants has been negatived by the Courts below.
"provided that a suit to obtain
relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or 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.
6
jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
7
which could be entirely obtained by the personal obedience of the defendants, the courts below have rightly found that the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, in view of the proviso appended to Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code.
At the end, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.01.2017
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No sms
8
To
9
T.RAVINDRAN,J.
sms
Pre-delivery order in S. A.No.97 of 2011 and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011
10
05.01.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit under the proviso to Section 16 CPC when the suit involved immovable property situated outside Chennai but reliefs could be obtained by pe
Whether the second appeal against the confirmation of the decree passes a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chitra Bhakthavatsalam
Bhakthavatsalam
Prabu
Yogesh
Sithi Fareetha
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
