Question

Principle: No court can execute the decisions unless it is having territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom decision is to be executed. The Court which gave the decision can transfer the matter to the court which has the territorial jurisdiction over the person or property.
Facts: A decision is given by court at New Delhi on a contractual matter against X in a suit between X and Y. X is resident of Maharashtra and he has properties in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only
• B. New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also
• C. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only
• D. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The correct option is (D):New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat .

Answer 2

The principle says a court cannot execute its own decision unless it has territorial jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom the decision is to be executed, though it can transfer the matter to a court that does have that jurisdiction. New Delhi decided a contractual dispute against X, who lives in Maharashtra and owns property in both Maharashtra and Gujarat.

1. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only: Maharashtra is indeed a valid transferee court, since X resides there and also owns property there, but limiting the transfer to Maharashtra alone ignores that Gujarat is an equally valid option through X's property there.
2. New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also: The principle separates the power to decide from the power to execute, and execution specifically needs territorial jurisdiction over the person or property, which New Delhi does not have over X or his assets. Having decided the matter does not carry over into a right to execute it.
3. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only: Gujarat qualifies because X has property there, but restricting the transfer to Gujarat alone wrongly leaves out Maharashtra, where X both resides and holds property.
4. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat: Both locations satisfy the principle's requirement of territorial jurisdiction over the person or the property, Maharashtra through residence and property, Gujarat through property, so the transfer can go to either.

Because two different courts each have valid territorial jurisdiction over X or his property, the New Delhi court's transfer is not limited to a single forum.

Therefore, the correct answer is New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat.

Answer 3

The fact that decides this question is where X, the judgment debtor, has a territorial connection, X resides in Maharashtra and also owns property there, and separately owns property in Gujarat. New Delhi itself has no such connection to X or his assets. Each option can be tested against this map of connections.

1. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to Court at Maharashtra only: Maharashtra is indeed a valid destination since X resides and holds property there, but this option ignores that Gujarat is an equally valid destination through X's property there.
2. New Delhi court can execute the decision because it had the jurisdiction to decide the matter so it can execute also: New Delhi has no territorial connection to X or his property at all, which is exactly what the principle requires for execution, so deciding the case does not carry over into a right to execute it.
3. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to court at Gujarat only: Gujarat is a valid destination through X's property there, but this option wrongly excludes Maharashtra, which qualifies through both residence and property.
4. New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat: This is the only option that reflects both valid destinations, matching the full territorial map the facts describe.

Mapping X's actual connections against each option leaves only the one that keeps both Maharashtra and Gujarat open as transferee courts.

Therefore, the correct answer is New Delhi court can transfer the proceedings to either of the courts i.e. Maharasthra or Gujarat.