Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two civil appeals arising from a partition dispute over the estate of late Col. Kultar Singh Dhillon, who died on 6th January 2012, leaving behind two legal heirs: his son Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon (appellant in one appeal) and daughter Smt. Harinder Singh Ghuman (respondent in the other). The daughter filed a suit for partition in the Delhi High Court on 14th February 2012, while the son later filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, SBS Nagar, Punjab on 5th May 2012 based on a will. The son filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the Delhi suit seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds that the Delhi property was governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (barred under Section 185), and that other properties in Punjab were outside Delhi's territorial jurisdiction. The Single Judge and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that Section 17 CPC allows a suit where any immovable property is situated, and the Delhi property had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, thus not attracting the bar. In the Punjab suit, the daughter sought to have additional issues 3A and 3B (regarding inheritance rights) decided as preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, but the trial court and High Court declined, noting the matter was at an advanced stage. The Supreme Court upheld both decisions, finding no substance in the appeals, and dismissed them with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 17 CPC - Where immovable properties are situated in multiple jurisdictions, a suit can be filed in any court where any part of the property is situated - The High Court correctly held that the suit for partition is maintainable in Delhi as one property is situated there, and the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction (Paras 10-11, 17-18).
B) Civil Procedure - Preliminary Issues - Order 14 Rule 2 CPC - Additional Issues 3A and 3B - The trial court and High Court rightly declined to decide additional issues as preliminary issues as they require evidence and would delay proceedings - The matter is at an advanced stage of trial (Paras 15-16, 20-21).
C) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - Applicability - Section 185 - Urbanised Land - The subject property in Delhi was urbanised under Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 vide notification dated 23rd May, 1963, and thus the Delhi Land Reforms Act does not apply - The bar under Section 185 is not attracted (Para 17).
D) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - Section 158 - Not applicable to partition suit filed in Delhi - The relief claimed in the suit does not attract the bar under this Act (Para 18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit plaint for partition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887; and whether additional issues 3A and 3B should be decided as preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC.
Final Decision
Both civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Section 17 CPC
- Section 185 Delhi Land Reforms Act
- 1954
- Section 158 Punjab Land Revenue Act
- 1887
- Order 14 Rule 2 CPC
- Section 507(a) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act
- 1957
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (10) 78
Civil Appeal No(s). 8263 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 22118 of 2018) and Civil Appeal No(s). 8264 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 20655 of 2019)
Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals arising from orders in partition suits concerning the estate of late Col. Kultar Singh Dhillon.
Remedy Sought
Appellant Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon sought rejection of plaint in the Delhi suit and dismissal of the appeal against the order refusing to decide additional issues as preliminary issues in the Punjab suit.
Filing Reason
Dispute over partition of the estate of late Col. Kultar Singh Dhillon between his son and daughter.
Previous Decisions
The Single Judge and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court and High Court in Punjab dismissed the application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC.
Issues
Whether the suit plaint for partition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on grounds of territorial jurisdiction and bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Whether additional issues 3A and 3B should be decided as preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon) argued that the Delhi suit is barred by Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and lacks territorial jurisdiction for properties in Punjab; and that the High Court erred by looking into the written statement at the Order 7 Rule 11 stage.
Respondent (Harinder Singh Ghuman) argued that the Delhi property was urbanised and thus not subject to the Delhi Land Reforms Act; that Section 17 CPC allows suit where any property is situated; and that additional issues should be decided as preliminary issues as they go to the root of the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rightly dismissed because Section 17 CPC permits a suit to be filed in any court where any part of the immovable property is situated, and the Delhi property had been urbanised under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, thus not attracting the bar under Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Regarding the preliminary issues, the court held that the trial court and High Court correctly declined to decide additional issues as preliminary issues as they require evidence and would delay proceedings, especially since the matter is at an advanced stage.
Judgment Excerpts
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the view that both the appeals are without substance and deserves to be dismissed...
Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that where more than one court has jurisdiction, a suit can be filed at any Court where any of the immovable property is situated...
Procedural History
Suit for partition filed by Harinder Singh Ghuman in Delhi High Court on 14th February 2012. Lt. Col. Paramjit Singh Dhillon filed a suit in Punjab on 5th May 2012. In the Delhi suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by Single Judge on 27th January 2016 and by Division Bench on 19th July 2018. In the Punjab suit, an application under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC was dismissed by trial court on 15th April 2017 and by High Court on 4th April 2018. These appeals were filed against the orders of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the High Court of Punjab.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 7 Rule 11, Section 16, Section 17, Order 14 Rule 2
- Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: Section 185
- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887: Section 158
- Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: Section 507(a)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
