Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala HC
Section 17 CPC| Mere Existence Of One Item Or Portion Out Of Several Items Of Properties Within Territorial Limits Would Be Sufficient To Confer Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court
|The Kerala High Court was considering an appeal challenging the preliminary decree in a suit for partition.
The Kerala High Court has explained that, in terms of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, a suit can be instituted in any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. The Bench also held that the mere existence of one item out of several items of property or even a portion of any of the items, within the territorial limits, would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court.
The High Court was considering an appeal challenging the preliminary decree in a suit for partition.
The Division Bench of Justice Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held, “Apart from the plaint 'F' schedule item No.1, namely, the property in question, almost all the other items sought to be partitioned are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. Section 16 stipulates that a suit for partition is to be filed in the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property sought to be partitioned is situated. In terms of Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if immovable property is situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, suit can be instituted in any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.”
"Therefore, the mere existence of one item out of several items of properties or even a portion of any of the items, within the territorial limits, would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court. We hold that the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit", it added.
Advocate B. Krishnan represented the Appellant, while Advocate G. Sreekumar (Chelur) represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The property in question is a residential flat in Mumbai, which belonged to one Velayudhan, who died in 1986. His wife died in 2002. They had 6 children, namely, Rajendran and the other 5 defendants. Rejendran’s legal heirs sought partition after his death. The Trial Court passed the impugned preliminary decree for partition, declaring that the plaintiffs together, and each of the defendants, were entitled to 1/6 shares each. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that apart from the plaint schedule item, namely, the property in question, almost all the other items sought to be partitioned were situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The Bench held that the Trial Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the mere existence of one item out of several items of properties or even a portion of any of the items, within the territorial limits, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court.
The Bench was of the view that the contention regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction was not available for the appellant since it ought to have been raised before the Trial Court at the earliest possible opportunity. The Bench also negatived all the contentions of the appellant with regard to the maintainability of the suit.
Coming to the issue of claim for equitable allotment of the apartment, the Bench left this plea of equity to be considered by the trial court in the final decree proceedings. Thus, refusing to interfere with the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran(Died) (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:35893)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates B. Krishnan, R. Parthasarathy
Respondent: Advocate G. Sreekumar (Chelur)