CPC, 1908 · Part I · Place of Suing
Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate
Sue about land where the land lies — the rule of forum rei sitae.
The bare Act
Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits—
(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
(b) for the partition of immovable property,
(c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,
(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,
(e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment,
shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:
Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or 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.
Explanation.—In this section “property” means property situate in [India]1.
1. Subs. by Act 2 of 1951, s. 3, for “the States” (w.e.f. 1-4-1951). On the post-Constitution territorial adaptation the word “India” replaced the earlier “the States”, so § 16 now reaches immovable property anywhere in India. (A single substitution — no further amendment history.)
How to read Section 16
It is a territorial rule. For suits that concern immovable property, the proper place to sue is fixed by where the property is situated — not where the parties live. Lawyers call this forum rei sitae (“the forum of the thing’s site”).
The six kinds of suits in clauses (a)–(f) “shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.”
Where the relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant’s personal obedience, the suit may instead be filed where the defendant resides / works / carries on business — the equity idea that “equity acts in personam.”
The core rule, in one picture
The property sits inside one court’s local limits. A suit about that property is filed in that court — wherever the plaintiff or defendant may live.
Six kinds of suits caught by §16
The proviso — the “personal obedience” exception
When the relief can be entirely obtained by compelling the defendant personally (equity acts in personam), the plaintiff gets a choice of two courts:
The normal §16 forum — the court of the local limits where the immovable property lies.
The court where the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
Condition: the property must be held by or on behalf of the defendant, and the whole relief must be obtainable through his personal obedience (typical example: a suit for specific performance of a contract relating to land, or a mortgage decree enforced against the defendant personally).
“Property” in §16 means property situate in India. So §16 governs Indian immovable property. For immovable property situated outside India, an Indian court generally cannot try a suit about title/possession — but the proviso lets it act where it can bind the defendant personally (the equity-acts-in-personam principle; cf. the Moçambique rule).
The maxim behind it
Forum rei sitae
“The court where the thing (property) is situated.”
Why it fits §16: suits about immovable property go to the court within whose limits the property lies.
The Proviso & the Explanation — each on its own tab
⚖️ When the relief works on the defendant, not the land
Condition
Relief can be entirely obtained through the defendant’s personal obedience (e.g. he can be ordered to act).
Option A
Sue where the property is situate (the §16 default).
Option B
Sue where the defendant resides / carries on business / works for gain.
🌎 Explanation — “property” means property in India
“property” (in §16)
the immovable property the section speaks of
property situate in India
§16 governs only immovable property in India — foreign immovable property is outside its scope.
Connected rules & sections
§16 fixes the place; §15 still fixes the grade of court within that place.
Where the immovable property lies within the limits of more than one court — one suit in any of them.
Where it is uncertain in which court’s limits the property lies.
For wrongs to the person or movable property — a different, optional-forum rule.
All other suits (not covered by §§16–19) — defendant resides or cause of action arises.
A wrong choice of place must be raised early; it upsets a decree only on failure of justice.
Where the suit is for immovable property, the plaint must identify the property (boundaries / survey numbers).
The principle behind the proviso — a court can bind a person it has over, even as to property elsewhere.
Suits for specific performance of land contracts are the classic “personal obedience” case under the proviso.
Courts generally will not try title to foreign immovable property — tracking the Explanation (“in India”).