Immovable property suits seeking title, injunction and possession relief fall within Section 16(d), with return of plaint maintained.

A suit framed as one for declaratory and injunctive reliefs was treated as falling within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure because the plaint itself placed immovable property at the centre of the dispute, challenged title and interest, and sought restraints affecting alienation, third-party dealings and possession. The proviso to Section 16 could not displace that character where possession-related relief was involved. The text also notes that return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is distinct from rejection under Order VII Rule 11, so allowing both applications together was internally inconsistent and the rejection portion required deletion while the return of plaint remained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit, though framed as one for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, was in substance one concerning rights in immovable property so as to fall under Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and require return of the plaint; (ii) whether the High Court's common order allowing both the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required modification.

Issue (i): whether the suit, though framed as one for declaratory and injunctive reliefs, was in substance one concerning rights in immovable property so as to fall under Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and require return of the plaint.

Analysis: The plaint itself treated the disputed properties as the subject matter of the suit and challenged the defendants' right, title and interest in those properties. The reliefs included declarations against deeds of confirmation, injunctions restraining alienation and third-party dealings, and a prayer restraining handing over of possession. A decree on such reliefs would necessarily affect rights in immovable property and, in relation to possession, would not be fully covered by the proviso to Section 16. The invocation of Section 20(c) could not override the statutory command of Section 16(d) where the suit was substantially about immovable property.

Conclusion: The suit was held to fall within Section 16(d), and the order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 was sustained.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court's common order allowing both the applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 required modification.

Analysis: Allowing both applications was internally inconsistent because return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 operate differently. Once a plaint is rejected, the question of presenting the same plaint before another court does not arise, whereas return of plaint permits presentation to the proper court. The High Court's operative direction therefore needed correction to align with its actual reasoning and intended relief.

Conclusion: The portion of the order allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 was set aside, while the return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting the inadvertent rejection of plaint, while the direction returning the plaint for presentation before the competent court at Bengaluru remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suit substantially seeks declarations and injunctions affecting title, interest, and possession in immovable property, it falls within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and cannot be sustained on the basis of the proviso or a contrary forum-selection clause when possession-related relief is also involved.

---