Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4676 (MAD)

First v. Second

2011-11-30

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2011
Judgment : VINOD K. SHARMA, J 1. The applicants/plaintiffs filed a suit for Specific Performance of agreement of sale dated 22nd April, 2006, regarding the undivided share of the land, and to hand over possession of the newly constructed flat measuring 2244 sq.ft. The plaintiff has also prayed for damages. 2. It is the pleaded case of the applicants/plaintiffs, that the defendants agreed to sell the flat to plaintiff. The agreement of sale was executed at Chennai and, the payment was also made within original jurisdiction of this Court at Chennai. 3. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the entire cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this Court, the applicants/plaintiffs have filed the suit in this Court for Specific Performance of agreement of sale. 4. It is also pleaded case of the applicants/plaintiffs, that the Defendants are also residing at Chennai and running business here. 5. On the ground that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and also the fact that the defendants are the residents of Chennai, the plaintiffs invoked Section 20 of C.P.C. for seeking leave to sue the defendant. On the pleading referred the above this court granted leave to sue in this Court. 6. The applicant/Defendant has now filed application No.4908 of 2011, to revoke the leave granted to the applicants/plaintiffs. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant, is that admittedly, the suit property is not within the original jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The leave to sue can be granted based on the cause of action, in a suit other than the suit relating to immovable property. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant referred to Clause 12 of the letter patent which reads as under: "12. The leave to sue can be granted based on the cause of action, in a suit other than the suit relating to immovable property. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant referred to Clause 12 of the letter patent which reads as under: "12. Original jurisdiction as to suits-And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court : or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees." 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel that reading of the Clause 12 of Letter Patents Act, makes it clear, that leave to sue can be granted on the cause of action, only in a suit not involving interest in immovable property. Once the right is claimed qua the immovable property then the suit will only lie where the immovable property is situated. 10. In support of this contention, leaned counsel for the applicant/defendant, placed reliance upon the following Judgments of this Court: 1. 1998(1) CTC 436 A.VELLIANGIRI (DECEASED) & 3 OTHERS VS. M/S.RAM BAHADUR TAKUR (P) LTD., & 3 OTHERS, 2. 2000(4) CTC 479 MR.D.HARIKRISHNAN VS. MGR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST 3. 2001(1) CTC 134 MRS. PARAMESWARI VELUCHAMY & OTHERS VS. MR.T.R.JAYARAMAN & 7 OTHERS 4. 2002(4) CTC 653 MR.S.K.J. DHANASEKAR VS. M/S.S.V.S.JAWAHARLAL 5. 2005(3) CTC 86 MR.UMER KOYA VS. TAMILNADU CHESS ASSOCIATION 6. 2005 (5) CTC 483 M/S.TAMIRAPARANI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VSM/S.META FILMS PVT. LTD., 7. 2006(1) CTC 270 M/S.THAMIRAPARANI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS M/S.META FILMS PVT. LTD., 11. 2001(1) CTC 134 MRS. PARAMESWARI VELUCHAMY & OTHERS VS. MR.T.R.JAYARAMAN & 7 OTHERS 4. 2002(4) CTC 653 MR.S.K.J. DHANASEKAR VS. M/S.S.V.S.JAWAHARLAL 5. 2005(3) CTC 86 MR.UMER KOYA VS. TAMILNADU CHESS ASSOCIATION 6. 2005 (5) CTC 483 M/S.TAMIRAPARANI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VSM/S.META FILMS PVT. LTD., 7. 2006(1) CTC 270 M/S.THAMIRAPARANI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. VS M/S.META FILMS PVT. LTD., 11. The consistent view of this Court in all these Judgments is that the suit qua immovable property lies at the place, where the immovable property situated. The leave granted, therefore, is liable to be revoked, in view of the settled law express provisions of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act. The suit filed being not competent in this Court, the leave granted is revoked. The office is directed to return the plaint to the non-applicants/plaintiffs, for presentation in appropriate Court having jurisdiction to deal with the lis. 12. In view of the order passed, herein, the other applications filed by the plaintiffs for interim prayers are closed.