ANIL KUMAR HANDA Vs. SUMAN BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff files this suit for declaration that he is the absolute owner of all the properties moveable and immovable mentioned in Sch. 'A' attached to the plaint under the will dated 26th Dec. 1977 executed by Kewal Kishan Handa and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the said properties. The Plaintiff alleges that Kewal Kishan Handa was his paternal uncle and husband of the defendant, that plaintiff was brought up as a son by his uncle as he did not have any child, that his uncle was carrying on business under the name and style of Handa Printing Press at Saharanpur and he purchased properties out of his own earnings from the said business. There are three plots situated at Saharanpur detailed in Sch 'A' attached to the plaint. The move- able properties consist of the amounts lying in deposit with the banks as detailed in Sch. 'A'. The plaintiff further alleges that Kewal Kishan Handa executed a Will on 26th December, 1977 bequeathing all immovable and movable properties to him with a direction that he would pay Rs. 300.00 per month to the defendant and that he would also spend Rs. 1,00,000.00 on the construction of a Dharamshala in the name of the deceased, that Kewal Kishan Handa died on 15th June, 1978 leaving behind the said assets, that the defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiff's right, that a cloud has been cast on his right under the Will. The defendant in the written statement admits all the allegations contained in the plaint except that a monthly allowance of Rs. 300.00 under the Will was not being paid to her. The defendant denies that she ever interfered with the rights accrued to the plaintiff under the Will. In fact the defendant says that she has no objection to the grant of decree for declaration provided the amount of Rs. 300.00 per month is regularly paid to her under the Will. She complains that she has not been paid the said amount since the death of her husband which occurred on 15th June, 1978. On merits no issue arises as the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff. The following issues, however, arise for determination:

(2.) The plaintiff claims jurisdiction with regard to immovable properties on the basis that the defendant held out threats to him at Delhi and that she resides and works for gain at Delhi. Section 16. Civil P. C. is as under:

(3.) Under this section a suit for the determination of any right to immov- able property under cl. (d) is to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the pro- perty is situate. The plaintiff claims absolute ownership regarding the pro- perty in question, and absolute right under the Will dated 28th Dec., 1977 of Kewal Kishan Handa, husband of the defendant. The question is: what are the rights of the plaintiff in the three plots in question ? This question relates to determination of rights in immovable property, Admittedly the three plots are not situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction under S. 16, Civil P. C. to determine whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plots. The moveable properties consist of deposits in banks. The defendant admittedly resides at Delhi. Therefore this Court under S. 20, Civil P. C. has jurisdiction to determine the right of the plaintiff with respect to moveable properties in suit. Some of the bank accounts are within the jurisdiction of this Court at Delhi. The other accounts are with the banks at Saharanpur. It is, therefore, held that this Court has jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff's right with respect to moveable properties only.