Madras High Court
P. Ranganathan And 8 Ors. vs Sai Jagannathan And 9 Ors. on 7 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(2)CTC181, (1995)IIMLJ559
ORDER Govardhan, J.
1. O.A. No. 123/1995 is an application for injunction in which the applicant has stated that the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the applicants possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the respondents who have no manner of right whatsoever in respect of the properties and who are not in possession of the properties, are attempting to commit trespass into the suit properties and therefore, interim injunction has to be granted.
2. Interim injunction was granted when this application was moved on 10.2.1995 for a period of four weeks. The said order was subsequently modified to the effect that Status Quo as on 24.2.1995 has to be maintained. The respondents have filed A.No. 1071/1995 for vacating the ex parte order of injunction and A.No. 1072/1995 for interim suspension of the ex parte order of injunction.
3. In the above applications which have been in the form of a counter-affidavit to O.A. No. 123/1995 apart from stating their case that the respondents have also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs Mrs. Chitra Samapath has argued that since the defendants have taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable, this Court may give a finding with regard to the above contention of the respondents since it goes to the root of the case and she may be permitted to argue on the question of making the interim injunction absolute at a later date after the finding is given by this Court on the question of maintainability of the suit. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have taken a stand that the suit is not maintainable in this Court on the ground that the suit property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and as per third part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the suit is maintainable in this Court, on account of the fact that all the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. This question of maintainability of the suit is therefore taken as a preliminary point.
4. The suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit property is a land of an extent of 4.65 acres in S.Nos.19/2 to 19/8 within Alandur Municipal Limits, Saidapet taluk. The suit properties are therefore situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is not in dispute. As per the address for service of the defendants in the plaint all of them are residing within the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is also not in dispute.
5. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is as follows:
"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 Courts; 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 one hundred rupees."
A reading of it would show that there are three parts in this clause. The first part relates to suits for land or other immovable property. The second part relates to suits in which the cause of action had arisen either wholly or partly within the jurisdiction of this court The third part relates to suits in which the defendants at the time of the commencement of of the suit dwell or carried on business or personally work for gain within the limits of this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants after narrating the above parts in detail, would argue that since the defendants in missuit are residing and personally work for gain within the limits of this Court, as per Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the applicants-plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit irrespective of the fact that the suit properties lie outside the jurisdiction of this Court, and relies upon the decision reported in Bank of Madurai Ltd. v. Balaramadass and Brothers wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the Madras Court has full jurisdiction to hear a suit when the defendants reside within its territorial jurisdiction irrespective of the place of the immovable property and the nature of the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that title in respect of the suit properties is in dispute and that the respondents have already filed the suit in Sub Court, Poonamallee and the question of possession of the properties is also in dispute and therefore, this is a suit for land in respect of an immovable property lying outside the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, under Clause 12 of the Letter Patent, it cannot be filed at Madras.
6. The suit being one for bare injunction it is a suit for land. In other words, it is a suit for the purpose of acquiring possession of, or safeguarding possession of, or establishing title to or a right in land viz., the suit schedule property. It cannot be stated that the expression "suit for land" should be confined and limited to suits for recovery of possession of land or to obtain a declaration of title to land only. In this connection, I would like to refer to the decision reported in Gokuldas v. Chaganlal and Ors. (1927 I.L.R. 54 Calcutta 655) wherein it has been held that the expression "suit for land" in Clause 12 was not limited to suits in which the plaintiff sought to recover possession of land or other immovable property. Therefore, even a suit for bare injunction in respect of an immovable property, in my opinion, is to be considered only as a suit for land, since the expression "suit for land" was construed to mean a suit, which was substantially for land, that is to determine the title and possession of the land. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent came up for consideration before the Federal Court in the decision reported in Moolji Jaitha & Co., v. Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd., (1950 SCJ 51). Their Lordships discussed the construction and meaning of the words "suit for land" exhaustively and have held as follows:
Kania, C.J.- The last alternative in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which refers to the residence of the defendant or his carrying on business within the limits of the Court's original jurisdiction is an alternative having reference only to the words "all other cases" and applies to all other cases other than suits for land only.
Mahajan, J. - The last part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent does not confer jurisdiction on the High court on the ground of residence of the defendants in suits for land. This clause is governed by the expression "in all other causes" occuring in its earlier part.
Mukherjea, J. - The last alternative in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent which refers to the residence of the defendants or his carrying on business within the limits of the Court's jurisdiction is a provision applicable to all cause other than suits for land."
Their Lordships have considered the construction and meaning of words "suit for land" in Clause 12 and have held that the last part of Clause 12 applies to all other than suits for land only and therefore, we have to necessarily hold that present suit being one for land lying outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit irrespective of the fact that the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court. When the suit itself is not maintainable, the question of granting injunction does not arises. Therefore, the preliminary point raised in the injunction application is decided to hold that the suit is not maintainable in this Court and therefore, injunction also cannot be granted and the injunction already granted has to be vacated and the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiffs presentation before proper Court.
7. In the result, A. No. 1234/1995, A.No. 1071/1995 and A.No. 1072/1995 are ordered as follows: On the preliminary point as to whether the suit is maintainable in this Court, it is held that the suit is not maintainble. Without going into the rival contentions of the applicants and the respondents in these three applications, interim injunction already granted is vacated and the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation in proper Court. Time one month. No costs.