Rohit Kochhar vs. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Ors.
Background
Rohit Kochhar had agreed to buy commercial space in a hotel and commercial complex in Gurgaon from Vipul Infrastructure and others, and sued for specific performance of that agreement (i.e., to force the sale through) in the Delhi High Court, since the developers were based in Delhi. The developers argued Delhi courts had no jurisdiction since the property itself was located in Gurgaon. A single judge of the Delhi High Court initially agreed to hear the case, but a Division Bench on appeal reversed this and ordered the case be filed in the court with jurisdiction over Gurgaon instead.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench and dismissed Kochhar's petitions. Under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, suits related to immovable property must generally be filed where the property is located, unless the relief sought can be obtained entirely through the "personal obedience" of the defendant (i.e., without needing to deal with the property itself). Here, since honoring the contract would ultimately require executing and registering a sale deed in Gurgaon, not Delhi, the Court held that the Delhi courts could not entirely grant the relief through the defendants' personal obedience alone, so the proviso allowing suits at the defendant's location did not apply. The suit had to be filed in the Gurgaon courts.
Lesson Learnt
In property disputes, a buyer generally must sue for specific performance in the courts where the property is situated, even if the seller/developer is based elsewhere: the location of the immovable property, not the parties, usually determines which court has jurisdiction.