PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenged in revision here is the wholly erroneous order of the trial Court denying the defendants' prayer for further and better particulars of the property in suit in respect of which the relief claimed was sought.

(2.) On the face of it the frame of the suit is vague and indefinite. The suit pertains not only to moveable but also immoveable property, of which no particulars have been set out to enable it to be identified. Besides seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the moveable property specified in the annexure to the plaint (which was valued at Rs. 950/-), a further declaration was sought that the plaintiff was also the owner in possession of all other properties left by Bakhtawar Singh. In the alternative, a permanent injunction was asked for to restrain the defendants from interfering with the aforesaid properties or claiming any right therein. It is pertinent to note that the "other properties left by Bakhtawar Singh" were situated in places beyond the local jurisdiction of the trial Court, namely; in village Pharwala, Goraya and Dhubewal. This was so mentioned in the plaint itself.

(3.) As is well-known, the general rule is that the Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any rights or interest in property lying outside their local jurisdiction. In this behalf S.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') specifically provides that suits for the determination of rights and interest in immoveable property shall be instituted in the Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. There are then the provisions of O.7 R.3 of the Code, which require the plaint to contain a description of the immoveable property in suit sufficient to identify it, as also those of O.20 R.9 of the Code which similarly require the decree to specify the immoveable property in suit.