Suit seeking declaration of invalidity of conveyance deeds falls under Section 16(d) CPC, necessitating filing where property is situated.

The Appellants instituted a suit seeking a declaration that a conveyance deed dated 28.10.2014, an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 10.03.2014, and other transfer-related documents concerning an apartment in Gurgaon, Haryana, were null and void

The Appellants claimed Delhi Courts had jurisdiction because the initial booking occurred at the Respondent’s Delhi office and the Respondent carried on business there

The Respondent contested this, asserting the property is in Haryana and all transfer documents were executed/registered in Gurgaon

The Trial Court returned the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction, ruling the dispute substantially concerned rights to immovable property outside Delhi

The Appellants appealed, raising an additional plea that documents were signed under duress while en route to IGI Airport, Delhi

1. Whether the Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking cancellation of conveyance deeds and transfer documents for an immovable property situated in Gurgaon, Haryana

2. Whether the reliefs claimed are obtainable entirely through the personal obedience of the defendants under the proviso to Section 16 of the CPC

The court primarily applied Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandates that suits for the determination of any right to or interest in immovable property must be instituted where the property is situate

It considered the Proviso to Section 16 CPC, which allows suits to be filed where the defendant resides or works if the relief can be obtained through personal obedience

The court relied on Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., establishing that disputes substantially concerning rights in immovable property must follow the location of the property

It also referenced Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat regarding the distinction between suits for specific performance and suits involving title or interest in property

The Court examined the "dominant purpose" of the suit, finding that Prayer Clause (A) sought to declare conveyance and assignment deeds null and void

The Court reasoned that any adjudication on the validity of such documents directly affects the rights and title of the property and necessitates changes to public records maintained by authorities in Gurgaon

The Court rejected the Appellants' reliance on the Section 16 Proviso, noting that the relief was not a mere enforcement of a personal contract but a substantive challenge to a chain of title documents

The Court dismissed the Appellants' plea regarding the IGI Airport "coercion" as a subsequent attempt to create a jurisdictional nexus, noting the documents in question had actually been executed a month prior to the alleged incident

The initial booking in Delhi was deemed irrelevant as the challenge was directed at the subsequent sale and transfer

The High Court upheld the Trial Court's order returning the plaint, finding no infirmity or perversity in the decision

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that jurisdiction lies with the courts at Gurgaon where the property is situated