IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.11.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.No.5079 of 2011 ORDER This application, under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order 3 Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, has been filed for grant of leave to the applicant / plaintiff to institute the intending suit as against the defendants 6 and 7 herein and also as against the immovable properties, shown in Schedules B and C, which are situated outisde the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The applicant / plaintiff has filed a suit against defendants praying therein as under: "(a) For a declaration that the purported power of attorney dated 7.12.2005 and registered as document No.4092 of 2005 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of item No.1 of schedule 'A' property is illegal, invalid and nonest in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as illegal and the transaction effected by virtue of the same is not binding upon the plaintiff or upon her properties as described in the plaint schedules 'A' 'I'. (b) For a declaration that the purported settlemtn deed dated 21.12.2005 and registered as document No.3119 of 2005 in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit Schedule 'A' property is illegal, invalid and nonest in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff or upon her properties. (c) For a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Item No.2 of the Schedule 'A' mentioned property being superstructure plinth area of 2346 sq.ft in the first floor of the premises bearing old door No.14/8B, new No.5, Vijayaraghavachari Road, 1st Cross Street, T.Nagar and consequently direct the defendants to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff and that the said property was purchased in the name of the first defendant herein purchased by a sale deed dated 24.11.1985 and registered as document No.3680 of 1985 in the office of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the beneficial enjoyment thereof. (d) For a declaration that the sale deed dated 24.02.2000 and registered as document No.807 of 2000 in the office of the Sub Registrar, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of P.S.Ravindran, the 3rd defendant in respect of item No.1 of the Schedule 'C' property, and consequently direct the 3rd defendant to deliver possession of the Schedule 'C' mentioned property to the plaintiff on a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (e) For a declaration that the sale deed dated 24.2.2000 and registered as document No.1666 of 1000 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of P.S.Ravindran, the 3rd defendant in respect of item 2 of the schedule 'C' mentioned property and consequently direct the 3rd defendant to deliver possession of the Schedule 'C' mentioned property Item No.2 to the plaintiff on a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (f) For a declaration that the gift settlement deed dated 12.4.2000 and registered as document No.2601 of 2000 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai in favour of M.Lakshmi the 1st defendant herein in respect of the agricultural lands situate in Sholinganallur being a portion of the Schedule 'B' mentioned property is illegal, invalid and nonest in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff or upon her properties, and to set aside the same. (g) For a declaration that the Gift Settlement Deed dated 12.4.2000 and registered as document No.2602 of 2000 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai in favour of M.Lakshmi the 1st defendant herein in respect of the agricultural lands situate in Sholinganallur being a portion of the Schedule 'B' mentioned property is illegal, invalid and nonest in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff or upon her properties, and to set aside the same. (h) For a declaration that the sale deed dated 11.6.2004 executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in the name of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of the schedule 'B' mentioned property situate in Sholinganallur village under sale deed dated 11.6.2004 and registered as document No.3256 of 2004 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai and consequently direct the defendants 1 and 2 and 4 to deliver possession of Schedule 'B' mentioned property to the plaintiff on a date to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (i) For a declaration that the Lease deed dated 8.12.2006 and registered as document No.7034 of 2006 in the ofice of the Sub Registrar, Neelankarai entered into between the 6th defendant, Nuziveedu Seeds Limited and the 7th defendant Messrs.Ziliion Estates P.Ltd., in respect of a portion of Schedule 'B' mentioned agricultural lands situate in Sholinganallur comprised in S.No.554/2C-1 acre and 57 cents forming part of the lands more fully described in the Schedule 'B' hereunder is illegal, invalid and nonest in the eyes of law and consequently declare the same as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff or her properties, and to set aside the same. (j) For a permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants or their Agents or servants or any other person or persons claiming through them from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the property more fully described as items No.1 and 2 of the Schedule 'A' mentioned herein. (k) For a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant or his men, Agents, Servants or any other person or persons claiming through him or authorized by him in any manner from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the Schedule 'C' property in favour of any one more fully described in Schedule 'C' hereunder. (l) For a permanent injunction restraining the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th defendants or their men, Agents, Servants or any other person or persons claiming through them or authorized by them in any manner from alienating, encumbering or dealing with the property in any manner detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff more fully described in Schedule 'B' hereunder. (m) Directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to render true and proper accounts of the amounts realized on behalf of the plaintiff and also with regard to the investments, realizatioin of the income derived therefrom, requiring settlement of accounts as the Agents of the plaintiff and for costs of the suit." 3. The case of the applicant is that cause of action to institute the suit has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the defendant nos.1 and 2 are residents of Chennai and that the defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 are also residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent no.6 is at New Delhi whereas respondent no.7 is the resident of Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. 4. Part of the properties, which is the subject matter of the suit property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Whereas some of the properties are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. It is therefore prayed that leave may be granted to institute intending suit against defendant nos.6 and 7 as also with regard to schedule mentioned properties shown in B & C. 6. In support of the application, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on Clause 12 of the Letters 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." Learned counsel for the applicant / plaintiff also placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.Giridhar & another v. A.Suresh & others, 1988-2- L.W.308, wherein it was held as under: "9. The Calcutta High Court has also taken the same view of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in Surendra Krishna Ray's case. The appeal before the Division Bench arose out of a suit for possession of properties situated in Calcutta as well as property situated in the mofussil. Dealing with the question of jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court on the Original Side, Rankin, C.J. Observed as follows: "The question of jurisdiction must be answered by reading Clause 12 Letters Patent of 1865. The suit, in my judgment, is a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12, which says that this Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the land is situated either wholly or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part within the local limits of its Ordinary Original jurisdiction." In a later decision in Benoy Shankar's case, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed in paragraph 20 as follows: "Whatever may be the grammatical construction of Clause 12, it is now well established that in a suit for land, if the entire land is not situate within jurisdiction it is necessary that leave of the Court should be obtained before the institution of the suit in order that the suit may be filed in this Court. It is unnecessary to refer to the authorities which are numerous. I will only set out a passage from the judgment of Rankin C.J. in Manindrachandra v. Lal Mohan. The passage is as follows-Clause 12, is a clause which if it was to be construed for the first time according to its grammatical construction and in strict accordance with its wording, might perhaps have to be given a somewhat different meaning to that which is well settled now in all the High Courts of India. The effect of the construction upon which all the High Courts are agreed is that as regards suits for land, the High Court can take cognizance, if the land is situate wholly within the local limits or, where the land is situate in part only within such limits, if leave has been first obtained, and that as regards suits, other than those for land, the High Court has jurisdiction, if the cause of action has arisen wholly within the limits or where the cause of action has arisen in part only within the limits, if the leave of the court shall have been first obtained or if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within these limits." It thus appears to us that while there can be no controversy that as regards suits for land or immovable property where the whole of land or immovable property is situated within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court can take cognizance of such suits, it is also well established that even though a part of the land or immovable property is situated within such limits and part outside the limits, if leave has been first obtained, a suit for such land or immovable property can be entertained by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The construction placed before the Division Bench of this Court in the Bank of Madurai's case, is clearly in consonance with the construction placed on Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in the decisions of the two other Chartered High Courts, which have been followed now for more than fifty years. We respectfully agree with the view taken in the Bank of Madurai's case. It does not therefore appear to us necessary that the scope of Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent needs to be reconsidered afresh. We are inclined to observe that if the decision in the Bank of Madurai's case, had been placed before the learned Judge, probably the occasion for making a reference to the Division Bench would not have arisen. Having regard to the scope of Cl.12 as construed by the Division Bench in Bank of Madurai Ltd v. Balaramdas and Bros., the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to leave to file the present suit. We may also make it clear that the plaintiffs are also entitled to leave notwithstanding the fact that some of the defendants reside outside the jurisdiction of VINOD K.SHARMA.J., ar this Court as the suit expressly falls within the first part of Cl.12 as analysed by the Division Bench. Accordingly this petition for leave is allowed." 7. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of Madurai Ltd vs. Balaramadass & Brothers and others, AIR 1985 Madras High Court 1, wherein this Court held that the High Cout has jurisdiction to hear suit irrespective of place of immovable property and nature of suit. This judgment has no application. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the fact, that part of immovable properties is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court; and defendant nos.1 to 5 are residents of Chennai and that the defendant nos. 6, 7 and 8 draw their title through defendants, who are residents of this place, this application is ordered. ar