Summary
Section 17 CPC permits a suit concerning multiple properties in different jurisdictions where the same cause of action supports the claims and the chosen court can entertain the whole claim. It is not restricted to a single property crossing a territorial boundary. Nevertheless, this plaintiff’s challenges to separate transactions involving Indore and Mumbai properties and different defendants arose from different causes of action. Deletion of the Mumbai-property pleadings and relief from the Indore suit was upheld.
Issues
- Whether Section 17 CPC allowed the Indore suit to include the Mumbai property and distinct transferees.
Provisions considered
- Sections 16 and 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Section 17 is an exception to the usual situs rule and can encompass several properties, subject to the same cause of action and the court’s competence for the entire claim. (¶¶ 6–11, 17–21, 28–29)
- Section 13, General Clauses Act, 1897Supported reading singular property in Section 17 as including multiple properties. (¶¶ 9–11, 28)
- Order II Rules 2 and 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The whole-claim rule concerns one cause of action, while joinder of several causes is permitted against the same defendant or defendants jointly; neither justified this combination of distinct claims against different sets of defendants. (¶ 30)
Held
- Property and any portion of the property under Section 17 can include one or more of several properties within different territorial jurisdictions. A court where any such property lies may entertain the suit, provided the entire claim is cognizable and the claims rest on the same cause of action. (¶¶ 7–11, 18–21, 28)
- The plaint attacked a will, the Mumbai sale and separate Indore transfer documents involving different sets of defendants. The Mumbai and Indore claims were based on different causes of action and could not be clubbed to establish jurisdiction in Indore. (¶ 29)
- Order II Rule 2 did not permit combining different causes merely because the whole claim must be sued upon. Rule 3’s permission for joinder against the same defendant or defendants jointly did not fit these claims against separate groups. The objection to misjoinder had in fact been raised in the purchasers’ application. (¶ 30–33)
Result
Appeal dismissed; order striking out the Mumbai-property pleadings and relief from the Indore suit upheld.