K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the order dated 17 -3 -1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 110 of 1981, Baljit Singh v. Autar Singh and Anr. rejecting the plea about the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain suit by holding that the suit is maintainable in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as follows: A suit for partition was filed by Plaintiff Baljit Singh as indigent person In forma pauperis. Before the application of the Plaintiff for being declared as indigent person could be disposed of, a plea was raised by the Defendant -applicants challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide the suit. The Plaintiff had filed this suit for partition in respect of certain movable and immovable properties detailed at the foot of the plaint. The Immovable property, namely, house and land is situate at Haiderparh, district Bara Banki while the other property, namely, business carried out by Firm Autar Singh Kartar Singh and Firm Jogendra Singh Gurvendar Singh were at Sultanpur. The Plaintiff had prayed for partition of said immovable property and also the properties of the business carried out in the name of aforesaid two firms located at Bazar Musafirkhana and Nibalganj, district Sultanpur. The business carried out In the name of Firm Shahendar Singh at Haidergarh district Barn Banki was also subject matter of the suit for partition Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -opposite party admits that the suit for partition of the assets of the said three firms would be treated to be partition of movable properties, which are situate both in the districts of Sultanpur and Bara Banki. He further concedes that no immovable property, which is subject matter in the suit for partition, is situated in district Sultanpur. The learned District Judge, Sultanpur, vide order dated 17th March, 1983 held the suit for partition in respect of aforesaid properties to be maintainable in his Court and rejected the plea raised by the Defendants challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and decide the suit. This revision is directed against the said order.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist Sri H.L. Srivastava urged that learned District Judge has erred in assuming jurisdiction to entertain and decide the aforesaid suit for partition because no such suit for partition in respect of immovable property could be filed in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur as the immovable property was located in district Bara Banki and not at Sultanpur. Learned Counsel further urged that since the cause of action in the present suit for partition of immovable and movable properties was joint, and as such, entire suit could be filed in the Court of District Judge, Bara Banki and the same would not be maintainable in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur. In reply learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -opposite party urged that the suit could be filed in the court of District Judge, Sultanpur because the cause of action arose in the local limits of jurisdiction of District Judge, Sultanpur where some of the movable properties are situate. He urged that the partition of the assets of the business carried out in district Sultanpur could not be filed in the court of District Judge, Bara Banki and since the cause of action for partition was one and the same in respect of all the movable and immovable properties, the suit could be filed by the Plaintiff in the Court of District Judge, Sultanpur. In support of his contention learned Counsel referred to Clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code which provides that the suit shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. The said contention was upheld by the learned District Judge and the plea about jurisdiction raised by the Defendant -applicants was rejected in view of Section 20(c) of the Code. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THERE appears to be no dispute about the jurisdictional facts and it is admitted that no portion of the immovable property is situate in district Sultanpur. The suit for partition of immovable property would be maintainable in the court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the property is situate. Reference may be made to Section 16(b) of the Code which provides that subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, a suit for the partition of immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. In Giridharilal Surana v. Mirzamal Agarwala, AIR 1962 Gau 95, the Division Bench of Assam High Court, while dealing with the question of jurisdiction in respect of immovable property, held that: The general rule that the Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction a part of the cause of action arises can entertain the suit is not applicable to suit covered by Section 16 Code of Civil Procedure unless it can be shown that a particular case is covered by the proviso to the section. The section forbids even claims for rent of immovable property being tried by a Court which has no jurisdiction over the immovable property in question. I am In respectful agreement with the view expressed in the said decision and I find that by virtue of Clause (c) of Section 20, the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit for partition in respect of immovable property cannot be ousted on the averment in the plaint to the effect that the cause of action, either wholly or in part, arose within the jurisdiction of another court where the immovable property is not situate. A suit for partition in respect of, immovable property had to be filed in the court within the local limits of w lose jurisdiction the property is situate as is provided under Section 16(b) of the Code. This provision is not subject to the provisions contained in Sections 18 - 20. On the other hand 1 find that the provision contained in Section 20(c) is subject to the limitation contained in earlier sections as is evident from the opening words to the effect -'subject to the limitations aforesaid.' Thus, the provision contained in Section 20 would not operate indifferently and would be construed subject to the limitation contained in Sections 16 - 19 of the Code. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that a suit for partition in respect of immovable property would be maintainable only in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate as is provided under Section 16(b) of the Code. Such suit cannot be filed in any other court merely on the ground that the cause of action for the partition of the immovable property, wholly or in part, arose within the local limits of jurisdiction of another court as well. The provisions contained in Section 20(c) would not be construed in the manner so as to take away or curtail jurisdiction of the court to which the suit for partition of immovable property would be required to be filed in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 16(b) of the Code. In this view of the matter I find that Section 20(c) cannot be pressed in service by the learned Counsel for the opposite party in support of his argument that in respect of immovable property also the suit could be filed in the Court of District Judge Sultanpur as a composite cause of action had allegedly arisen at Sultanpur for the partition of both movable and immovable properties. The learned District Judge had rejected the plea of jurisdiction raised by the Defendant -applicants placing reliance on said Section 20(c) of the Code, which, in my opinion, is an altogether erroneous view and the suit cannot be said to be maintainable in the Court of District Judge, Sultanpur in respect of partition of alleged joint property in suit.;