The Hindu Business Line : Suit on possession of land situated outside jurisdiction could not be entertained: HC

The Madras High Court has held that a suit involving determination of title and interest of land and for recovery of possession and control of land would be a "suit for land". Thus, this Court could not entertain a suit in respect of a land situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, Mr. Justice D. Murugesan ordered.

(The original side of the High Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for land if the land is situated outside Chennai, according to legal sources.)

Though in a suit for bare injunction the court would not go into the question of title, but was concerned about a prima facie case as to the possession, whether or not possession was claimed, if title to any immovable property was to be directly affected by the result of the decision, the suit would be only a suit for land, the Judge said while allowing an application by a Chennai-based company praying for revocation of an order of interim injunction granted.

The plaintiff - Thamiraparani Investments Pvt Ltd, Chennai - filed the suit for a judgement and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Meta Films Pvt Ltd) from disturbing the possession of the immovable property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with Citrex Products Ltd on August 25, 1995 for purchase of 25.8 acres of land out of 30.8 acres in Ponneri Taluk, and the company handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff against full payment of the value.

The defendant by an agreement dated March 12, 1997 entered into with the same company, agreed to purchase the remaining five acres out of 30.8 acres owned by that company. On the strength of the said agreement, the defendant, though was entitled to possession of the said 5 acres of land only, attempted to interfere with remaining extent of land. Hence, the suit.

As the property was situated outside this Court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff filed an application for grant of leave on the ground that the agreement was entered into by the defendant only at Chennai. This Court granted leave. The defendant had taken out the application to revoke the said leave.

The Judge noted that the suit was not laid by the company which had entered into an agreement with the defendant for sale of land. The suit was laid on the basis that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the company for purchase of 25.8 acres out of total extent of 30.8 acres. An agreement that was entered into between the defendant and the company could not be a cause for the plaintiff to maintain the suit at Chennai, as admittedly that agreement was not between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even in a suit for bare injunction, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit could not be entertained as the property fell outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

Citing a case law of the apex court, the Judge opined that the contention of the plaintiff that they were entitled to sue the defendant with the leave of this Court, could not be accepted. Though in a suit for bare injunction, the Court would not go into the question of title, if title to any immovable property were to be directly affected by the result of the decision, the suit would be only a suit for land.

Hence, the Judge said that the leave granted to the plaintiff was revoked and the application was allowed.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page