Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for specific performance of contract of sale and perpetual injunction in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, against the respondents. The suit was based on an agreement to sell dated 17.01.2019 executed at Aurangabad, under which the plaintiffs paid Rs.30,000/- as part consideration. The plaintiffs claimed possession of the suit property since 1990 under an earlier agreement. The defendants filed an application (Exh.12) challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Aurangabad court, arguing that the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court. The trial court allowed the application, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and directed transfer of the suit to Vaijapur. The plaintiffs challenged this order by way of writ petition. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that under clause (c), a suit can be instituted where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The court found that the agreement was executed at Aurangabad and part consideration was paid there, giving rise to a part of cause of action at Aurangabad. The court also noted that the plaintiffs sought specific performance and injunction, and the location of the property alone does not determine jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the Aurangabad court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 20(c) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit for Specific Performance - The court held that where the agreement to sell was executed at Aurangabad and part consideration was paid there, a part of cause of action arises at Aurangabad, conferring jurisdiction on the Aurangabad court. The trial court erred in holding that only the court where the suit property is situated has jurisdiction. (Paras 5-7)
B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance of Contract - Jurisdiction - Agreement to Sell - The court clarified that for a suit for specific performance, the cause of action includes the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration, not merely the location of the property. The trial court's order transferring the suit to Vaijapur was set aside. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for specific performance of contract of sale when the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court but the agreement was executed and part performance took place at Aurangabad.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 02.02.2023 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in Special Civil Suit No.66/2021, and held that the Aurangabad court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Part performance
- Section 20 CPC
- Cause of action
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 93
Writ Petition No.8219 of 2023
Mr. Hemant S. Surve for petitioners, Mr. D.R. Kale for respondents
Gangubai w/o. Laxman Nawale & Ors.
Hemant s/o. Harendra Nanawati & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging order on territorial jurisdiction in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the trial court's order holding lack of territorial jurisdiction and directing transfer of the suit to Vaijapur Court.
Filing Reason
The trial court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for specific performance as the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad) passed order dated 02.02.2023 in Special Civil Suit No.66/2021 holding that it does not have territorial jurisdiction and directed transfer of the suit to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Vaijapur.
Issues
Whether the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit for specific performance of contract of sale when the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court but the agreement was executed and part performance took place at Aurangabad.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the agreement to sell was executed at Aurangabad and part consideration was paid there, giving rise to a part of cause of action at Aurangabad, thus the Aurangabad court has jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC.
Respondents argued that the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of Vaijapur Court and therefore only that court has jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
For a suit for specific performance of contract of sale, the cause of action includes the execution of the agreement and payment of consideration. Where such events occur at a place, that place has jurisdiction under Section 20(c) CPC, even if the suit property is situated elsewhere. The trial court erred in holding that only the court where the property is situated has jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The agreement to sell dated 17.01.2019 was executed between parties at Aurangabad.
It is stipulated in the agreement dated 17.01.2019 that the plaintiffs had paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the defendants as part consideration.
The court held that the trial court has jurisdiction to try the suit as part of cause of action has arisen at Aurangabad.
Procedural History
Plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No.66/2021 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad for specific performance and injunction. Defendants filed application Exh.12 challenging jurisdiction. Trial court allowed the application on 02.02.2023, holding lack of territorial jurisdiction and directing transfer to Vaijapur. Plaintiffs filed Writ Petition No.8219/2023 in the High Court challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 20
