MOOT MEMORIAL

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

SUBMITTED BY
Mega Sri S – 2022BALH07ASL110

BA.LLB (2022 – 2027) ‘A’

SUBMITTED TO: PROF. SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY

SUBMITTED ON: 1/04/2025

ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW

ALLIANCE UNIVERSITY

1
 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BHOPAL

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL CASE NO. _____ OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABC private Ltd., company…………...plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Amrendra (Renowed Industrialist) …………Defendant

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT

hOF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION…………………………………………… 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………...………….5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………...………………….6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………..........................7

ISSUES RAISED……………………………………..............................9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………….10

PLEADINGS…….………………………………………………………11

ISSUE 1: Whether or not jurisdiction lies at Bhopal court?

ISSUES- 2: Whether the Agreement of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff
is valid?
ISSUES- 3: Whether the defendant is entitled to claim one crore by way of
counter claim?

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………16

3
Co. Company

Ltd. Limited

Pvt. Private

AIR All India Report

SC Supreme Court

& And

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

1. Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhoda Debi, (1890) ILR 17CAL700.

2. Gsl India Ltd. Petitioner v. Asset reconstruction co. (India), 2015 SCC ONLINE BOM
6073.
3. Siva v. Sudha Ramesh, AIR 2022 Mad. 148
4. Mian Pir Bux v. Sardar Mohammed Tahir, AIR 1934 PC 235.
5. Ariff v. Jadunath, AIR 1931 PC 79; 58 IA 91
6. Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508.
7. Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh, (1996) I SCC 770.

STATUTES:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Transfer of property Act, 1872.

The Registration Act

DATABASES:

https://www.casemine.com/.

BOOKS:

The Transfer of Property Act, DR. R. K. Sinha.

Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963, C.K. Takwani.

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The case is filed under the District court of Bhopal as against Section 16 of the code, it is humbly
submitted by the counsel for defendant that the court herein before in which the case has brought
lacks its territorial Jurisdiction. The case must be transferred to a rightful court which has
Jurisdiction to deliver the judgement as per Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code1.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1
16. Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate. —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) or 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 1 [India].

6
1. ABC Pvt. Ltd Company registered and incorporated under the companies’ act, 2013.
Registered at Bhopal and its head office at New Delhi
2. Mr. Amrendra (54 years) is a renowned Industrialist and resides in Bhopal and he owns
25 acres of Industrialist land at Indore which values 25 crores.
3. ABC Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Amrendra went into a contract at Bhopal to sell and buy the 25
acres of land.
4. The property was sold through a sale agreement executed on 24th January 2023 for five
crores. The agreement was unregistered but sold and executed by the vendor.
5. Four crores were paid through registered demand draft for possession under Section 53-A
of Transfer of property act, 1882. Remaining 1 crore was to be paid on 12 th February
2019.
6. However, after taking possession the Company found that 3 acres of land is under
mortgage. Mr. Amrendra has mortgaged the land to Seema in the year 2018.
7. Hence, the company sued the industrialist for specific performance at district Court,
Bhopal (in accordance with the Suit Valuation Act, 1887).
8. Mr. Amrendra claimed that the agreement sale is duly executed. The agreement is
unregistered and unilateral. Thus, the plaintiff does not have the right to file a suit and
hence, the suit is not maintainable.
9. An objection regarding to the Jurisdiction was also raised by Amrendra. It was also
contended that the company was verbally informed about the mortgage and the company
was asked to settle the accounts with Seema.
10. Counter claim was also made by Mr. Amrendra against One crore due by the Company.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUES -1
Whether or not jurisdiction lies at Bhopal court?

ISSUES- 2

Whether the Agreement of sale executed in favour of the plaintiff is valid?

ISSUES- 3

Whether the defendant is entitled to claim one crore by way of counter claim?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1- whether or not jurisdiction lies at Bhopal?

It is Humbly submitted before the District Court of Bhopal, that the jurisdiction does not lie at
Bhopal and rightfully the jurisdiction lies at Indore where the property is situated as per Section
16 of Civil Procedure Code. Which deals with the suits relating to immoveable properties and its
place of suing.

ISSUE 2- whether the agreement of sale executed in favor of the plaintiff is valid?

It is Humbly submitted before the court of law that the sale agreement is duly executed and hold
valid but it is unregistered. An agreement to sale should compile with the transfer of property act
and the registration Act. In order to claim relief or right under Section 53-A, then the document
must be registered. Which is expressly mentioned in the statute, so the case is not maintainable
on the grounds of unregistered document.

ISSUE 3- Whether the defendant is entitled to claim one crore by way of counter claim?

It is Humbly submitted before the court of law by the counsel for defendant, that the defendant is
entitled to claim one crore by way of counter claim as per Order 8 Rule 6. To prevent
multiplicity of proceedings, to uphold the rights of both the parties and to adjudicate the dispute
between the parties in a way of counter claim or set-off, in the same trial.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether or not Jurisdiction lies at Bhopal?

[1]. It is humbly submitted before the honorable district court of Bhopal that the jurisdiction does
not lie in the present court rather it falls under the jurisdiction of Indore District Court where the
25 acres property is rightfully situated. “Suits pertaining to territorial Jurisdiction of a court is
divided into four classes under the code, which is suits pertaining to immoveable property,
moveable property, suits for compensation for wrong and other suits”2. So, under territorial
Jurisdiction of a court, the above case relates to the immoveable property of 25 acres’ industrial
land situated at Indore.

[2]. As per section 16 of Civil Procedure Code, which deals with place of suing that is
jurisdiction, lays down the provision that in civil matters related to property, the suit can be
instituted in a court within whose local limits, the immoveable property is situated provided to
the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. This is to prevent Multiplicity of proceedings, the
provision intended to benefit the suitors, and to prevent the precious court time. This Section
traces back to the legal maxim Lex situs that is the suit must be instituted where the subject
matter is situated. “Section 16(c) reads thus, Suits to be instituted where subject matter situate,
Subject to pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits—(c) for foreclosure, sale
or redemption in the case of a mortgaged of or charge upon immoveable property, shall be
instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate”3

[3]. Henceforth, In the case of “Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhoda Debi”4, It was held that if a case
relates to immoveable property under Section 16 of the code, “(3). By Section 16 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, suits for the recovery of immoveable property, or for the
determination of any other right or interest in immoveable property, must be instituted in the
Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. This shows that the

2
C.K. Takwani, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE with Limitation Act, 1963, Eighth Edition, pg.142.
3
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S. 16(c), Acts of Indian Parliament.
4
Prem Chand Dey v. Mokhoda Debi, (1890) ILR 17CAL700.

10
object of the Code is to limit the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in regard to
the property that they are entitled to deal with5”.

[4]. Further, in the case of, “Gsl (India) Ltd. Petitioner v. Asset Reconstruction Co. (India)” 6 it
was held that where a property related to the subject matter of foreclosure, sale or redemption in
the case of mortgage of or charge, the jurisdiction lies to the court where the immoveable
property is situated. The subject matter in dispute in the moot proposition relates to the
mortgaged immoveable property. So does the insertion of Section 16(c) of the code.

[5] In furtherance to it, it is humbly contended that the jurisdiction does not lie in the Bhopal
District Court as per section 16 of the code because the property is of immoveable in nature and
it follows the principle of Lex Situs that is the suit must be filed and heard where the
immoveable property is situated.

ISSUE 2- whether the agreement of sale executed in favor of the plaintiff is valid?

[1]. It is Humbly submitted before the court of law, “that the agreement of sale deed is duly
executed in favor of the plaintiff is valid but is unregistered and unilateral, which means the
plaintiff does not have the right to file a suit and thus it’s not maintainable” 7. The agreement to
sale deed was executed, “the agreement was unregistered but signed and executed by the vendor.
An amount of Rs. Four crores were paid through registered Demand Draft for possession under
Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Remaining amount of Rs. One crore was to be
paid on 12th February 2019”8.

[2]. Hence, it was held in a case of “Siva v. Sudha Ramesh”9, when an agreement to sale is
unregistered, the document would be ineffective and the plaintiff cannot seek any remedy under
Section 53-A. Here, the plaintiff has paid 4 crores for the possession of the property where he
has performed his part by paying three fourth of the amount in due of 1 crore rupees. “Even if the

5
Id.
6
Gsl India Ltd. Petitioner v. Asset reconstruction co. (India), 2015 SCC ONLINE BOM 6073.
7
Moot proposition.
8
Id.
9
Siva v. Sudha Ramesh, AIR 2022 Mad. 148.

11
contract is in writing, stamped, attested, and duly executed but not registered, law may not
protect his possession”10.

[3]. “The amendment to section 53-A of TP Act must be read together with Section 17 and
Section 49 of the Registration Act, a new inserted clause of section 17-A highlights that the
written documents must be registered for the purpose of Section 53-A of TP Act in transfer of
immoveable properties with consideration for instance (sale)” 11. Hence, it is humbly submitted
before the court even the agreement of sale deed is executed, it is not maintainable before the
court of law based on the grounds of unregistered document, failing to comply with Registration
Act.

[4]. In furtherance, It was held in the case of “Mian Pir Bux v. Sardar Mohammed Tahir”12,
“The defendant in this case took the defence of part performance where the defendant had taken
over the possession of land through oral agreement for sale. The privy council rightfully rejected
the plea of defendant by upholding the express statutory provisions laid down in Indian law via
The Registration Act and The Transfer of Property by denying the English equity of part
performance”13. This was also upheld in the case of “Ariff v. Jadunath”14.

ISSUE 3: Whether the defendant is entitled to claim one crore by way of counter claim?

[1]. It is humbly submitted before the court of law by the counsel, that the defendant is entitled to
claim one crore by way of counter claim as per Order 1 of the code. Transposition of parties
under order 1 highlights the transposition of the capacity of parties that is from plaintiff to
defendant or from defendant to plaintiff. This is to avoid multiplicity of Proceedings. “A court
can, therefore, order transposition of parties in an appropriate case. This can be done either on
an application by a party or by court suo moto. No such Transposition, however can be allowed
if it alters the character of the suit or causes prejudice to the opposite party”15.

[2]. Counterclaim is usually made by the defendant against a plaintiff in a suit. It was held in the
case of “Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani”16, “that the provisions relating to counterclaim

10
Dr. R. K. Sinha, The Transfer of Property Act, 22nd Edition (2023), Central law agency, pg.228.
11
Id.
12
Mian Pir Bux v. Sardar Mohammed Tahir, AIR 1934 PC 235.
13
Supra 9, pg. 230.
14
Ariff v. Jadunath, AIR 1931 PC 79; 58 IA 91.
15
Supra 1, pg. 166.
16
Ramesh Chand v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508.

12
prevent multiplicity of proceedings, saves the precious time of the court, prevents from
inconvenience to parties while litigating, decides all disputes between the parties by way of
counter claim and set-off during the same trial” 17. Counter claim under the code is dealt under
Order 8 Rule 6-A to 6-G. It is also significant to consider that the counter claim must be within
the pecuniary limits of the court, as here the case is dealt under the district court of Bhopal
currently and the District courts and High courts do not have pecuniary jurisdiction, hence The
defendant is entitled to claim 1 crore rupees by way of counter claim as provided by the statute.

[3]. In the case of, “Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh”18, when A brings any claim against B and
files a suit to claim any interest or relief, if in case B has any Cross-claim in regard to the
dispute, he has a right to counter claim his relief. Which does not require to arise out of same
transaction unlike Set-off, which is required to arise out of same transaction. “Such counter
claim has the effect of a cross- suit and the court can pronounce a final judgment both on the
original claim and the counterclaim”19.

PRAYER

17
Supra 1, pg. 265.
18
Gurbachan Singh v. Bhag Singh, (1996) I SCC 770.
19
Supra 1, pg. 266.

13
Wherefore, in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court to:

1. To transfer the case to appropriate jurisdiction.

2. Hold that the agreement is duly executed and unregistered which is not maintainable.

3. Award any suitable relief deemed fit in the interests of justice and equity.

AND/OR

Pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit the circumstances of the given case
and in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience and thus renders justice.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

MEGA SRI S

14