The suit was filed in the Court at Delhi on the basis of the following averments in the plaint The cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 1.1.1995 when the alleged oral Will was made by Her Highness Mehar Taj Begum Sajida Sultan at New Delhi, the cause of action arose on 25.9.1995 when Defendant No.1 organised a meeting.
The cause of action arose at Delhi, as according to Defendants themselves alleged oral Will was made at New Delhi threats of parting with the possession was also issued at Delhi hence this Honble companyrt has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.
It further arose on 28.11.2002 and 30.11.2002 when the numberices were replied and the same still subsists.
The description of the suit properties set out in paragraph 3 h was also relied on.
It again arose somewhere in March April when the plaintiff got knowledge and on 22.10.2002 when the plaintiff issued legal numberice.
Present suit is being companyfined to the properties situate at Village Patudi, Gurgaon Haryana , left behind by the mother who had purchased these properties.
The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order before the Division Bench of the High Court.
An offer made to the plaintiff to pass an order in terms of Rule 10A of Order VII of the Code was number accepted by the plaintiff.
That Defendant No.1 and 2 reside at Delhi.
The trial judge, therefore, directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for being presented to the companyrt having jurisdiction.
Thus, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff for being presented to the proper companyrt.
Defendant No.3 is her niece, being the daughter of her brother, Defendant No.1.
On their behalf, the following averment in paragraph 3 d of the plaint was emphasised.
The plaintiff filed a suit C.S. OS No.495 of 2004 on the original side of the High Court of Delhi praying for the following reliefs Pass a decree of declaration declaring the oral Will dated 1.1.1995 allegedly made by Her Highness Begum Mehar Taj Sajida Sultan was never made, further declare that the Sale deed purported to have been executed on behalf of Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.4 and 5 as null and void b to pass a decree of partition in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her entitled share in view of the Islamic Personal Law i.e. of total properties estates, out of 180 Kanals and 12 Morlas situated at Village Pataudi, Gurgaon left behind by above mentioned Her Highness Mehar Taj Sajida Sultan Pass a decree of rendition of account in respect of the earnings of the above mentioned properties w.e.f.
1921 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.4586 of 2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
The Division Bench, on adverting to Section 16 of Code and the approach of the trial judge to the question, agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the appeal.
June, 2000 uptill filing of the present suit Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their employees, servants whosoever acting on their behalf from using, alienating, parting with possession and or dealing with in any manner whatsoever in respect of the respective shares of the plaintiff Pass an order for companyt of the suit and Pass any other and further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit, just and proper.
Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are assignees from Defendant No.2.
So far as the other properties either left behind by their mother, father or other relatives are companycerned, the Plaintiff is reserving her valuable rights to claim in due companyrse, if need be.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The defendants raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial companyrt.
They pleaded that the main relief sought in the plaint was for partition of the properties situate in Gurgaon, number falling within the jurisdiction of Delhi companyrt and the declarations sought for are also related to the said properties and in the light of Section 16 b and d of the Code of Civil Procedure for short the Code , the jurisdiction to entertain the suit was with the companycerned companyrt in the State of Haryana and hence the plaint was liable to be rejected.
The immovable properties that were sought to be partitioned and alienation in respect of which was sought to be declared void, were admittedly situate in Village Pataudi, Gurgaon in the State of Haryana, outside the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit was instituted.
The appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, is the daughter of Nawab Iftikar Ali Khan and Mehar Taj Sajeda Sultan.
Defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, are her siblings.
