Home > Recent Judgements > The Court Must Have Jurisdiction Over The Property In A Suit For Specific Performance Of Agreement To Sell: Supreme Court
DEC 11, 2024
BACKGROUND
The Supreme court in the case of Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors., upheld the decision of a division bench of the Delhi High Court that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell should be filed only in a court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, unless the proviso of Section 16 Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) is applicable. In this case, the appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in the Delhi High Court, within whose jurisdiction the respondent resides while the property was situated in Gurugram. Appeal was filed before a division bench of the Delhi High Court and the same was allowed. The aggrieved, thus approached the Supreme Court for the execution of the sale deed.
KEY ISSUES
- Can a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides in cases where relief can be obtained through personal obedience of the defendant?
- When does the conveyance of property take place in the enforcement of a sale deed?
- Can the court compel the registration of a sale deed beyond its territorial jurisdiction?
JUDGEMENT
The court held that proviso of Section 16 CPC allows filing of a suit for specific performance in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, contingent on the fact that deed can be executed by the defendant’s personal obedience. However, in this case the property was situated in Gurugram and the court would have to direct the defendant to execute the sale deed outside its jurisdiction. The personal obedience of the defendant was not enough for the execution. Thus, proviso of Section 16 was not applicable. Further, the court relied on a recent ruling, Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute v. Radhu Vithoba Barde and held that the conveyance of property takes places only when the sale deed is registered, and the same has to be done in Gurugram. Therefore, the court cannot go outside its jurisdiction and direct the defendant for specific performance of the deed in Gurugram.
OBSERVATION
The case demonstrates the importance of a court’s jurisdiction while directing the specific performance of a contract. Even if the case prima facie appears to be in favour of the petitioner, the court cannot exceed its jurisdiction in giving the decision. The Supreme Court in this case also emphasized on the fact that even if there is no specific plea made by the petitioner for a decree of possession, the petitioner still has an interest in the immovable property and the case would fall within the purview of Section 16(d) of CPC and the suit thus, must be instituted where the subject matter is situated.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
