Madras High Court
R.M.A.R. Arunachella Chettiar vs V.V.M. Muthiah Chettiar And Ors. on 15 November, 1912
Equivalent citations: (1912)23MLJ679
JUDGMENT
1. For the purpose of deciding this appeal it is sufficient to refer to the 3rd prayer in the plaint in which the plaintiff asks for a declaration that the mortgage executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 5 to 8 are invalid as against the plaintiff. As the properties affected by the mortgages are admittedly situated beyond the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, it could have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the prayer, because it clearly asks the Court to determine whether defendants No. 5 to 8 have an interest in immoveable property. The proviso to Section 16 C.P.C. has no application to such a case, as the relief is not one that can be rendered to the plaintiff by the personal obedience of the defendants. Benodi Behari Bose v. Nistani Dassi (1905) I.L.R. 33 C. 180 at p. 191. P.C. is not in point. That suit was for administration in the High Court and was governed by the Letters Patent. The Privy Council held that the suit was not one for land beyond the original jurisdiction of the High Court. This suit clearly comes within Clause (d) of Section 16 C.P.C. We dismiss the appeal with costs. We allow the memo of objections and direct the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs in the Lower Court also. He will also pay the cost of the memo of objections.