Supreme Court affirms lack of jurisdiction in property suit appeal

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Versus DLF Universal & Anr.

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Versus DLF Universal & Anr. - 2005 (7) SCC 791, 2005 AIR 4446 Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to try the suit.
2. Amendment of the written statement to include an objection to jurisdiction.
3. Applicability of Section 16 and proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Effect of a contractual clause conferring jurisdiction on a specific court.
5. Impact of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on objections to jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Delhi Court to Try the Suit:
The primary issue was whether the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance of an agreement related to immovable property situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. The court held that under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, suits for recovery of immovable property must be instituted within the local limits where the property is situated. Since the property in question was located in Gurgaon, the Delhi Court lacked jurisdiction. The court emphasized that a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment, reinforcing the principle that actions against property should be brought in the forum where such property is situated.

2. Amendment of the Written Statement to Include an Objection to Jurisdiction:
The defendants initially admitted the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court in their written statement. However, after more than eight years, they sought to amend the written statement to raise an objection to the jurisdiction. The trial court allowed the amendment, and the High Court confirmed this decision. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, stating that the objection to jurisdiction could be raised at any stage if it pertained to the subject matter, which cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.

3. Applicability of Section 16 and Proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
The court analyzed Section 16, which mandates that suits for recovery of immovable property must be filed where the property is situated. The proviso to Section 16, which allows suits to be filed where the defendant resides if the relief can be obtained through personal obedience, was deemed inapplicable. The court concluded that the relief sought (specific performance and possession) required dealing with the property directly, thus falling within the ambit of Section 16(d) without the application of the proviso.

4. Effect of a Contractual Clause Conferring Jurisdiction on a Specific Court:
Clause 28 of the agreement stated that 'The Delhi High Court or Courts subordinate to it, alone shall have jurisdiction in all matters arising out of touching and/or concerning this transaction.' The court held that such a clause is valid only if two or more courts have jurisdiction. Since the Delhi Court inherently lacked jurisdiction under Section 16, the contractual clause could not confer jurisdiction. The court cited precedents, including Hakam Singh v. Gamon (India) Ltd., to support that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that does not possess it under the Code.

5. Impact of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on Objections to Jurisdiction:
Section 21 requires that objections to jurisdiction be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' delayed objection should be barred. However, the court distinguished between objections to territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction, which must be timely, and objections to subject matter jurisdiction, which can be raised at any time. The court reiterated that jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, and a decree passed by a court without such jurisdiction is a nullity.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Delhi Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance and possession of immovable property situated in Gurgaon. The court upheld the trial court's decision to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court, emphasizing that jurisdiction over the subject matter cannot be conferred by agreement or waiver. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.