Section 17 permits a multi-property suit where any property lies, if claims share a cause of action.

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction concerning immovable properties situated in Villages Darain, Ghatai and Kharika Tola, across Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

The defendants objected to the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction, contending, among other things, that the Darain property was their self-acquired property and lay outside the court’s jurisdiction. The Civil Judge rejected their application under Section 16 CPC. The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The plaint pleaded that the properties were acquired or held jointly and that there had been no partition; it also identified properties in Ghatai and Kharika Tola within the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Whether a court may entertain a suit concerning multiple immovable properties situated within the jurisdictions of different courts where at least one property is situated within its local jurisdiction.

Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by rejecting the defendants’ application under Section 16 CPC, where the defendants disputed the nature of the property situated outside the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Section 16 CPC generally requires suits concerning immovable property, including partition and determination of rights or interests, to be instituted where the property is situated. Section 17 CPC provides that where a suit seeks relief concerning immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of different courts, it may be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated, subject to the proviso that the entire claim is cognizable by that court.

In Shivnarayan (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. Maniklal (Dead) through Legal Representatives, (2020) 11 SCC 629, the Supreme Court held that “property” in Section 17 includes multiple properties, and a suit concerning properties in different jurisdictions may be brought where one or more properties are situated, provided the suit is based on the same cause of action.

The plaint concerned properties in different jurisdictions and pleaded a joint basis for the plaintiff’s claims. Since properties in Ghatai and Kharika Tola were within the trial court’s jurisdiction, Section 17 CPC permitted the suit to be instituted there, subject to the statutory conditions.

The defendants’ assertion that the Darain property was self-acquired raised an issue about the nature and acquisition of that property, which the trial court was to examine after evidence; it did not establish a jurisdictional error warranting interference at this stage. Applying Shivnarayan, the High Court found that the trial court had correctly considered Sections 16 and 17 CPC.

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the suit to proceed before the trial court.