One Property Is Enough: Kerala High Court Clarifies How Courts Gain Jurisdiction In Multi-Property Partition Suits

The Kerala High Court has held that when a partition suit involves multiple immovable properties located in different jurisdictions, the presence of even one property or a part of any property within a court’s territorial limits is sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

A Division Bench comprising Justices Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar dismissed an appeal challenging a preliminary partition decree and clarified the interplay between Sections 16 and 17 CPC. The Court observed that while Section 16 generally requires partition suits to be filed where the property is situated, Section 17 creates an exception where properties are spread across different jurisdictions.

The dispute concerned a residential flat in Mumbai forming part of the estate of deceased owner Velayudhan. His legal heirs sought partition of several family properties, most of which were situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Chavakkad. One of the heirs challenged the court’s territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Mumbai property could not be adjudicated by a Kerala court.

Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v. Maniklal (D) through LRs and held that jurisdiction exists if any one of the properties forming part of the same cause of action is located within the court’s territorial limits. The Bench further noted that objections regarding territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage before the trial court and cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time in appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, while leaving questions of equitable allotment of the Mumbai flat to be considered during final decree proceedings.

Case: P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran (Died).