MAHADEO GOVIND SUKTANKAR Vs. RAMCHANDRA GOVIND SUKTANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of the Assistant Judge at Belgaum to recover mesne profits of certain land for the years 1915-16 and 1916-17. It is admitted that the land is situated in the Kurundwad State outside British India, and that the plaintiff bases his claim to mesae profits on the fact that he became entitled to such land by an award decree in 1916 and did not get possession of the lands until 1917. The defendants contended that as the suit came under Section 16(e) of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court had no jurisdiction. This contention found favour with, the learned Assistant Judge and also with the District Judge.

(2.) Now in the case of land outside British India Section 16 has no application and have to fall back upon general principles in considering whether this is a suit in which a personal relief is claimed against a defendant residing within the jurisdiction of the Court.

(3.) First, it may be as well to clear the ground by disposing of certain contentions which were raised in the course of the argument as to the proper scope of Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sub-section (e) and the proviso to the section. Sub-section (e) excludes from the jurisdiction of the Courts, outside whose local limits the property is situate, suits for compensation for wrong to such immoveable property; and the word "wrong" refers to torts affecting immoveable property such as trespass, nuisance, infringements of easements etc. The proviso makes it clear that even although a wrong to immoveable property is alleged, yet where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through the defendant's personal obedience, then the suit can be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, So that assuming for the moment that the suit was one for mesne profits relating to land in British India, and the land had been outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court at Belgaum, still if the decree, the decree directed something to be done which could be done through the personal obedience of the if defendant, such as the payment of money, then the Belgaum of Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.