Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal & Anr (2005)

Quick Summary

The dispute came from a plot buyer agreement for land in Gurgaon. The buyer sued in Delhi for declaration, specific performance, possession, and injunction. The trial court later held that Delhi courts had no power because the land was in Haryana. The Supreme Court agreed.

Rule: Suits about immovable property (like specific performance for land) must be filed where the property sits (Section 16 CPC). The proviso (“equity acts in personam”) is narrow and did not apply here. Objections to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised early (Section 21 CPC). Consent cannot give a court the power it lacks.

Issues

• Do Delhi courts have jurisdiction to try a suit for specific performance and possession of land located in Gurgaon, Haryana?
• Can the defendants raise a jurisdiction objection at a late stage after earlier admissions?

Rules

• Sections 15–20 CPC: Allocation of suits to proper courts.
• Section 16 CPC: Suits about immovable property must be filed where the property is situated. Proviso is a narrow exception (equity acts in personam).
• Section 21 CPC: Objections to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken at the earliest—at or before settlement of issues.
• Subject-matter jurisdiction: If a court lacks it, its orders are a nullity and parties cannot cure it by consent or admission.

Facts (Timeline)

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court. Delhi courts could not try this suit. The case was about specific performance and possession of a Gurgaon plot. Under Section 16(d) CPC, such suits lie where the property is.

The proviso to Section 16 (equity in personam) did not help here. Section 21 requires early objection to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, but even an admission by the defendants could not confer basic jurisdiction that the Delhi court lacked.

Ratio

• Suits for specific performance concerning immovable property are governed by Section 16 CPC; they must be filed where the property is located.
• The proviso to Section 16 is a narrow exception; it cannot expand the main rule.
• Objections to territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction must be taken early (Section 21 CPC); but lack of basic jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver.
• Orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities.

Why It Matters

Students learn the filing rule for land-related suits. Lawyers get a clear boundary for Section 16 and the limits of “equity acts in personam.” It also teaches urgency: raise your jurisdiction objection at once, or risk losing that ground.

Key Takeaways

• Property suits follow the property—file where the land is.
• Proviso to Section 16 is small and special; don’t overuse it.
• Raise territorial/pecuniary objections early (S.21), or they may be shut out.
• Subject-matter limits are absolute; consent cannot fix them.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Land Lives Local, Proviso is Petite.”

1. Land: If it’s about land, Section 16 sends you where the land lives.
2. Petite Proviso: Equity in personam is small; don’t stretch it.
3. Clock Ticks: Section 21—raise objections early, or lose them.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Specific Performance

A court order to perform a contract as promised, often used in land sales.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

A court’s legal power to hear a type of case. Without it, orders are void.

Section 16 CPC

Rule that suits about immovable property are filed where the property is.

Section 21 CPC

Requires early objection to territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction.

Equity Acts in Personam

A principle allowing courts to compel a person, not to change land rules.

FAQs

Related Cases