The Gujarat High Court has held that a civil dispute relating to immovable property situated in India must be adjudicated by Indian courts, regardless of where the parties are domiciled, and a foreign court judgment on such a dispute would not bind an Indian court.
Justice Sangeeta Vishen, dismissing an application filed by an NRI defendant seeking stay of proceedings on the basis of a parallel suit filed in the United States, held:
"Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is explicit that a suit for recovery of immovable property situate in India shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. This is a rule of mandatory jurisdiction that cannot be ousted by party agreement or the comity of courts."
The court further held that a judgment of a US court on title to property in India would not be a 'foreign judgment' entitled to recognition under Section 13 CPC, since the US court would itself lack jurisdiction under Indian law.
**PRACTICAL IMPACT**
The ruling has significant implications for the growing number of NRI property disputes where one party attempts to litigate in a more favourable foreign jurisdiction. Indian courts have consistently held that suits relating to Indian land must be tried in India.
Discussion (Leave a comment)