Supreme Court of India

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd

(2005) 7 SCC 79120051 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit in Delhi for specific performance of an agreement to allot a plot in Gurgaon and for possession, relying on a clause giving Delhi courts jurisdiction.
Issue
Whether the Delhi court had jurisdiction over a suit for specific performance and possession of immovable property situated in Gurgaon.
Held
The suit was covered by S.16(d) and had to be filed where the property was situated. The proviso to S.16 did not apply because possession was sought, and S.20 could not be used. Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has none.
Principle
A suit for immovable property lies where the property is situated; an agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on another court.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiff filed a suit in Delhi for specific performance of an agreement to allot a plot in Gurgaon and for possession, relying on a clause giving Delhi courts jurisdiction.

Issue

  1. Whether the Delhi court had jurisdiction over a suit for specific performance and possession of immovable property situated in Gurgaon.

Held

  • The suit was covered by S.16(d) and had to be filed where the property was situated. The proviso to S.16 did not apply because possession was sought, and S.20 could not be used. Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that has none.

Cite this

Citation

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v DLF Universal Ltd (2005) 7 SCC 791

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1916513/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.