S. K. Mahajan ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration, partition, rendition of accounts, mandatory and permanent injunction. The suit is in respect of two properties; one being house No. 2460, Chhipiwara, Delhi and the other being nine shops known as Tata Ram shops, Muradnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The allegations made in the plaint are : ( 2 ) THAT the Chhipiwara property was purchased from the common savings of the Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad in which they all lived together being joint in mess. However, the property was purchased in the individual name of Bhairon Prasad; that it was the desire of the said Tata Ram, Ganga Sahai and Bhairon Prasad that the Chhipiwara properties should never be sold and should remain the ancestral house of the family and it was with this intention that Bhairon Prasad dedicated the house at Chhipiwara to the private deity of the family. The dedication is alleged to have been made in the name of Shri Radha Kishanji Maharaj where idol of Radha Kishanji was installed. It is stated to be a private temple for the use of the family and in existence since about 1929. The allegations are that since the Chhipiwara property is dedicated to a private temple, the same cannot be transferred or alienated by any party and the ownership thereof vests only in the deity and not in any living person. Atma Ram was the father of defendant No. 1 and was the natural son of Tata Ram, he is alleged to have been adopted by Shri Bhairon Prasad. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 in the night of 13th August, 1994 removed the idols of Shri Radha Kishanji from the Chhipiwara house and intended to sell the said house. It is alleged that the Chhipiwara house having been dedicated to the temple, Shri Radha Kishanji Mahara ). no person, including defendant No. 1, had any right to dispose of the same and an injunction was, therefore, claimed against defendant No. 1 from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff and his family members from worshipping and offering prayers at the private temple in Chhipiwara and restrain the defendant No. 1 from transferring, selling, alienating or parting with possession in any manner of the said Chhipiwara property. ( 3 ) THE allegations about the Muradnagar property are that Shri Tata Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and grand-father of defendant No. 1, out of his own funds had purchased the land at Muradnagar, District Meerut, Dttar Pradesh and had constructed nine shops thereon which were popularly known as Tata Ram shops. The said shops were let out to the tenants and Shri Tota Ram d uring his life time was realising rent from them. One of the said shops is alleged to have been sold by defendant No. 2, the plaintiff and late Shri Atma Ram; that after the death ofshri Tota Ram, Muradnagar property was being managed by his eldest son Shri Atma Ram, in whom the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had full trust and faith. After the death of Atma Ram in 1975, his widow started realising rent from the shops to which also the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 did not raise any objection; that defendant No. I in the month of July, 1994 had attempted to sell eight shops at Muradnagar in which the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 also had one-third share each and on coming to know of the alleged illegal act of defendant No. 1, they had requested him to desist from taking any such action; that out of the eight shops, four were stated to be lying vacant and the plaintiff had on 1st August, 1994, when he visited Muradnagar, placed his lock on the said four shops. It is alleged that defendant No. I had been realising rent from the tenants at Muradnagar and was giving the same to his mother and now after the death of his mother in 1993, the rent realised from the four shops was being appropriated by him to himself. It is, therefore, alleged that defendant No. 1 had no right to either sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of any of the said shops at Muradnagar or to take the rent being realised by him from the tenants and appropriate for his own benefit. It is, therefore, alleged that defendant No. 1 had no right to either sell, transfer, alienate or part with possession of any of the said shops at Muradnagar or to take the rent being realised by him from the tenants and appropriate for his own benefit. ( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 has filed written statement and a preliminary objection has been taken that as the cause of action for the two reliefs; one regarding the property in Delhi and the other for the property in Muradnagar is different, the same could not be joined together in law and in any case this Court did not have any jurisdiction to try this suit in respect of a property which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and partition of which has been sought by the plaintiff in the present suit. It is on the basis of this objection that this matter was fixed for arguments to decide the question as to whether this Court has any jurisdiction to try the suit for partition of the property in Murad nagar. ( 5 ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff has to frame suit in a manner so as to have the final decision upon all the subjects in disputes between the partics to prevent further litigation concerning them. The contention, therefore, is that as both the properties in Delhi as well as in Muradnagar are the subject matter of the disputes between the parties, the plaintiff is necessarily to seek relief in respect of such disputes and has, therefore, joined the causes of action in the present suit so as to seek relief for both the properties. His further contention is that under Section 17th the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in case the relief in a particular suit is being sought in respect of two different properties, the plaintiff has a right to file a suit within the jurisdiction of a Court in which one of the such properties is situate. He, therefore, states that this Court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit. He, therefore, states that this Court has the jurisdiction to try the present suit. ( 6 ) WITH a view to attract the provision of Section 17 CPC, I feel it is necessary that the causes of action for filing the suit in respect of the two properties situated within thejurisdiction of two different Courts should be the same. In case, the causes of action are different, in my opinion, the plaintiff cannot file suit in respect of two propertiesin a Court which does not have jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of one of the properties. The plaintiff can take benefit of the provision of Section 17 CPC, in case, he is permitted by the provision of Order 1 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code and Order 2 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code to join such causes of action. In case, causes of action in respect of two properties cannot be joined, in my opinion, the suit cannot be tried in either of the Courts within whose jurisdiction one of the properties is not situate. ( 7 ) THE causes of action for the property in Chhipiwara is that the same belongs to a deity and, therefore, no party has a right to transfer or sell the same. The case of the plaintiff is that neither he nor any one of the defendants had any right in the property as the same belongs to the deity. The cause of action for the property in Muradnagar is that it is a joint property of the partiesand, therefore, one of the three parties cannot individually sell the same and a partition of the same has been claimed. In my opinion, causes of action for the two properties is wholly different and the same cannot be joined in the suit so as to bring the suit for the Muradnagar property within the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. Cause of action in respect of the property which is claimed to be owned by the deity is wholly different from the cause of action in respect of the Murad nagar property which is alleged to be the joint property of the parties and partition of which has been claimed in th issue it. Cause of action in respect of the property which is claimed to be owned by the deity is wholly different from the cause of action in respect of the Murad nagar property which is alleged to be the joint property of the parties and partition of which has been claimed in th issue it. Provision of Section 17 of Civil Procedure Code will not be attracted in this case so as to give a right to the plaintiff to file the suit in respect of a property which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ( 8 ) I, therefore, hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the property situate at Muradnagar. ( 9 ) MATTER be now listed for admission/denial of documents before the Joint Registrar on 20th August, 1996.