Suits for Compensation for Wrongs to Person or Movables: Section 19, CPC, 1908

Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) allows a court to entertain a suit for ‘compensation’ where wrong is done to the person or to movable property.  At the outset, it should be understood that if a suit is regulated by the provisions of section 19, the provisions of section 20 of the Code would not come into operation.[1] For the applicability of section 19, two conditions needs to be satisfied: (i) wrong is done within jurisdiction a one court, and (not ‘or’) (ii) defendant resides (or carries on business, or personally works for gain) within the jurisdiction of other court. The conjunction "and" in the qualifying clause leaves aside the cases  where both the conditions  together are not available; in such matters, suits are governed by other provisions of the Code.[2] When these conditions are satisfied, at the option of the plaintiff, either of the courts can entertain the suit for compensation.

For the purpose of interpretation of the section, one of the most important issues is the meaning of the phrase ‘wrong done’, i.e., when can it be said that some wrong is done by the defendant? According to the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), phrase ‘wrong done’ take in not only the initial action complained but also the resultant effect.[3] The Court  within whose  local  jurisdiction  damage  was  caused  or  suffered  or  sustained  would  clearly  answer  the requirements  of  Section  19  for  the  purpose  of  suits  mentioned  therein. For instance, when wrongful action of defendant takes place within the jurisdiction of one court, and the plaintiff is affected by that action for all purposes in his business within the jurisdiction of other Court.

Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: An Overview

Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”) provides that suits relating to immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated. However, there is also a proviso which provides that where relief (respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property) can be ‘entirely obtained’ through defendant’s personal obedience, suit can be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain (The underlined part can also be found in clause (a) and (b) of section 20 of the Code). Explaining the scope of section 16, the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd.,[1] opined that:

“16. Section 16 thus recognises a well-established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment. The proviso to Section 16, no doubt, states that though the court cannot, in case of immovable property situate beyond jurisdiction, grant a relief in rem still it can entertain a suit where relief sought can be obtained through the personal obedience of the defendant. The proviso is based on a well-known maxim “equity acts in personam”, recognised by the Chancery Courts in England. The Equity Courts had jurisdiction to entertain certain suits respecting immovable properties situated abroad through personal obedience of the defendant. The principle on which the maxim was based was that the courts could grant relief in suits respecting immovable property situate abroad by enforcing their judgments by process in personam i.e. by arrest of the defendant or by attachment of his property.”

Where the main part of section 16 is applicable, section 20 of the Code would have no application in view of the opening words in section 20 “subject to the limitations thereof”.[2] Where a suit is filed for recovery of immovable properties or determination of any right or for interest in immovable properties, only the Court within whose local limits the properties are situated shall have the jurisdiction.[3] In other words, the language of section 16 is very wide and all cases, in which prayer for declaration of any right or interest in immovable property is made or its sale is asked for, must be filed in the Court which has territorial jurisdiction over such immovable property.[4]