Territorial jurisdiction in specific performance of immovable property claims depends on where conveyance must be executed and registered.

Territorial jurisdiction for specific performance of an agreement to transfer immovable property was held to depend on where the relief could be fully worked out. Reading the plaint as a whole, the court found that execution and registration of the sale deed, together with the vendor's obligation to deliver possession as incidental to specific performance, meant the dispute concerned immovable property outside Delhi. The proviso to Section 16 CPC did not apply because the relief could not be entirely obtained through the defendant's personal obedience in Delhi. The plaint was therefore ordered to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for specific performance of an agreement to transfer immovable property situated at Gurgaon when the plaint did not expressly seek possession.

Analysis: The plaint had to be read as a whole. Even though possession was not separately prayed for, the agreement referred to in the plaint contemplated execution and registration of the sale deed, and the vendor's obligation under the contract and Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 made delivery of possession incidental to specific performance. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires suits concerning immovable property to be brought where the property is situate, and the proviso applies only where the relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant's personal obedience. Here, the sale deed had to be executed and registered in Gurgaon, so the relief could not be entirely obtained through personal obedience in Delhi. The reasoning in Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the principles in the cited Supreme Court decisions, supported the conclusion that the suit was essentially one affecting immovable property outside Delhi.

Conclusion: The Delhi Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Final Conclusion: The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the plaint was directed to be returned in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for specific performance relating to immovable property cannot be brought within the proviso to Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 unless the relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant's personal obedience; where execution and registration of the conveyance must occur where the property is situated, territorial jurisdiction lies there.

---