Case Name: P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran and Ors. 

Petition No: R.F.A.No.149 of 2016 

Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:35893 

Date of Judgement: 25 May 2026

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR.

INTRODUCTION 

The present appeal came to the High Court through a challenge to the judgment of the trial court, which is the preliminary decree of partition.  The appellant was the second defendant in the primary suit. The appellant was dissatisfied with the inclusion of the residential flat located in Mumbai for partition and challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court based on the location of the property. The primary legal questions involved territorial jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the legal status of a nominee in a co-operative society, and the maintainability of the suit under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Societies Act’).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

The present properties were vested in the first generation, who were the husband and wife; they had six children. After their death, and after the death of one of the heirs, the legal representatives of the deceased heir filed a suit for partition against the other five heirs. The primary suit for partition was filed by the sub-court of Chavakkad, where most of the properties were located. The court provided a decree of partition with ⅙ shares to all the heirs, including the partition of the residential flat in Bombay. The appellant, who was the defendant no. 2 of the primary suit, appealed to the High Court, challenging that the trial court didn’t have jurisdiction to include the residential property in Mumbai and also stated that the deceased parents had already nominated him to vest the property in Mumbai.

ISSUES

• Whether the Sub Court, Chavakkad, had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a partition suit regarding property situated in Mumbai.

• Whether the nomination made by the deceased in favour of the appellant conferred absolute ownership of the property upon him.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 

The counsel for the appellant argued that Section 16(b) of the CPC requires a suit for partition to be filed at the place where the immovable properties are situated. The appellant held that the property in question is in Mumbai and that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The counsel also argued that Section 120 of CPC exempts the application of Section 17 of CPC to High Courts having original civil jurisdiction, and Rule 12 of the Bombay High Court Rules confers original jurisdiction over immovable properties situated within the local limits of the High Court; therefore, Section 17 of  CPC could not come to the aid of the Sub Court Chavakkad (trial court) to entertain the suit. 

The appellant also relied upon a judgement of the apex court in the decision of Shivnarayan (D) By Lrs v. Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs. and others [(2020) 11 SCC 629] that a suit in respect to more than one property situated in the jurisdiction of different courts can be instituted in a court within the local limits of jurisdiction where one or more properties are situated, provided the suit is based on the same cause of action with respect to the properties situated in the jurisdiction of different courts.

The counsel also contended the maintainability of the suit in light of Section 100 and Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, wherein Section 69 provides a mechanism for the settlement of disputes in a society or between its members or persons claiming through deceased members. Reliance was placed on a judgement of the Bombay High Court in Arun Wamanrao Shinde v. Prakash Bhagwan Dalvi and others [AIR 1991 Bom. 128] to contend that rival claims between the legal heirs will also fall within the scope of dispute under the Societies Act.

JUDICIAL REASONING & ANALYSIS

The court held that the mere existence of one item out of several items of properties or even a portion of any of the items within the territorial limits would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. The court clarified the arguments based on the decision of Shivnarayan (D) By Lrs v. Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs. and others [(2020) 11 SCC 629] that it was a case where the suit was against different sets of defendants with different causes of action regarding properties situated at different places. The cause of action and the defendants concerning the property situated at one place were different from the property elsewhere. The court also held that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on Section 120 of the CPC and the Bombay High Court Rules, are misconceived, as it is evident from Section 120 that it applies only to the suits before the High Court. The court also held that the appellant should have raised the challenge of territorial jurisdiction in the trial court at the earliest possible opportunity. The court relied upon Section 21(1) of the CPC, which prohibits the urging of such a contention for the first time before the appellate court. 

The court held that the dispute resolution under the Societies Act can only be availed of if the suit is one for the partition of the assets of a deceased member of the society. Here, the dispute is strictly between the legal heirs with regard to the entitlement, which relates to their inter se title between the parties. The mere fact that the deceased had constituted the 2nd defendant as his nominee did not effectuate the transfer in his name, so the appellant cannot claim the title to the property. The court further observed that the appellant would be best suited for the entitlement of the property and the allotment of the property since the appellant had taken steps pursuant to the nomination and expended amounts and also taken the registration of the property in the appellant’s name, but the court left the decision on the plea of equity open to the trial court.

CONCLUSION 

The High Court of Kerala ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s preliminary decree for partition, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the appellant. The Court also affirmed the territorial jurisdiction of the sub-court and reiterated that a nominee is merely the ‘hand to receive’ assets on behalf of all legal heirs and that such a nomination does not override the laws of succession. The court concluded that the property must be partitioned among all heirs, but the Court kept the appellant’s plea for the equitable allotment of the Mumbai apartment open, allowing it to be determined by the trial court during the final decree proceedings.