1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants against an order of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class. Delhi, dated 17th December 1970 by which he had decided three preliminary issues.
2. The brief facts leading to the revision are that the plaintiffs, who are the sons of defendant No. 1 instituted a suit for a declaration (with consequential relief) that the properties in dispute constituted joint Hindu family properties and for delivery of possession of the properties which had been alienated and for an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the remaining properties. The properties in dispute are mostly situated in District Hissar. State of Haryana, but one property mentioned at Seriall No. (V) is said to be a coparcenary house situated in Kuanwali, Delhi which is said to be in possession of Premkumar, defendant No. 9, who is alleged to be one of the sons of defendant No. 1 by a lady defendant No. 8. about whose validity of marriage with defendant No. 1, the parties are at variance.
3. The suit had been contested on a number of grounds ant the learned Subordinate Judge farmed three preliminary issues, namely :-
1. 'Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court - fee and jurisdiction ?
2. Whether the Civil Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to try the present suit ?
3. Whether the suit is bad for misguide of parties and causes of action If so its effects ?'
4. The learned Subordinate Judge, by the impugned order, answered issue No. 1 against the plaintiffs and directed them to pay court-fees according to Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act as amended in Punjab and extended to Delhi and no revision has been preferred against the said finding.
5. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the defendants and defendants Nos. 9 and 10 have challenged them in this revision . I have heard the learned counsel for parties. The parties have not led any evidence on the said issue and the matter has to be decided in accordance with the pleadings and for purposes of determination of the issues, the allegations in the plaint have, thereforee to be treated as true. The plaintiffs have urged that all the properties in dispute have been purchased from joint Hindu family funds and they constitute coparcenary properties and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to relief in their respect. Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that 'where a suit is to obtain relief respecting * * * * immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.' There is no doubt that one of the properties in dispute in respect of which relief has been claimed, is situated in Delhi. The defendants had before the trial Court contended that the property in Delhi did not exist, but the same has, on the material on record, been repelled by the learned Subordinate Judge and this findings has not been challenged before me. In view of the clear statutory provision, there is no doubt that the suit is maintainable within the jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners strongly urged that other properties were situated in Hissar and majority of the parties reside at Hissar and so it is extremely inconvenient to come and defend the suit in Delhi, but that is a matter of no consequence. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaintiffs seek to invoke it. The counsel also referred to Section 16 of the Code and urged that the suit in respect of the properties at Hissar must have been instituted there and the suit in respect of the property in Delhi can be instituted in the Court below, but I am unable to accept the said submission. If the plaintiffs have got a number of properties, they are fully entitled to take advantage of the provisions of Section 17 of the Code and the Court at Delhi is clearly seized of the jurisdiction over the subject-matter in dispute Issue No. 2 has, thereforee, been rightly answered by the Courts below.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Court was right in answering issue No. 3 in favor of the plaintiffs. The allegations made in the plain disclose that the plaintiffs are claiming one cause of action in respect of all the properties on the ground that they constitute joint Hindu family properties of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs and other children of defendant No. 1, and whether or not on the merits the plaintiffs will succeed in establishing their case, is not to be judged at this stage, but no infirmity can be found with the present frame of the suit and it cannot be said that it is bad for multifariousness. I, thereforee, affirm the finding of the Court below on issue No. 3. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed and costs of the revision will abide by the result of the suit.
8. Revision dismissed.