Jurisdiction for specific performance of immovable property turns on the property's situs, not forum clauses or waiver.

A suit for specific performance concerning immovable property is governed by the rule that it must be instituted where the property is situated. The proviso to Section 16 CPC applies only where relief can be obtained through the defendant's personal obedience and does not expand jurisdiction for disputes whose substance concerns immovable property. Section 20 is residuary and cannot override Section 16. A forum-selection clause is effective only between courts that already have jurisdiction, and neither consent, admission, waiver, acquiescence, nor delay in objection can confer subject-matter competence on a court that otherwise lacks it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement relating to immovable property situated outside Delhi could be instituted in a Delhi court on the basis of the defendant's office location, place of agreement, place of payment, or a contractual forum clause; and whether consent, admission of jurisdiction, or failure to object at the earliest stage could confer jurisdiction on a court otherwise lacking it.

Analysis: A suit for specific performance seeking conveyance and possession of immovable property is governed by the main part of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires institution in the court within whose local limits the property is situate. The proviso to Section 16 applies only where the relief can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant and does not enlarge the scope of the principal rule where the suit in substance concerns rights in immovable property. Section 20 is a residuary provision and cannot override the specific mandate of Section 16. A contractual clause selecting one forum is effective only where more than one competent court has jurisdiction; it cannot create jurisdiction in a court that otherwise has none. Likewise, admission of jurisdiction in pleadings, waiver, acquiescence, or delay in raising an objection cannot confer jurisdiction where the defect goes to the court's competence over the subject matter.

Conclusion: The Delhi court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the forum-selection clause was ineffective for that purpose, and the objection could not be defeated by consent or waiver.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit falling within Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the immovable property, and neither agreement of parties nor admission or waiver can confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks inherent competence over the subject matter.

---