Disposed

Dr.P.a.Subramanian v. S.Ramasamy and 17 Others

Madras HC17 Oct 2014CS/689/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a suit filed in the High Court solely to overcome territorial jurisdiction limits can be transferred back to the City Civil Court if its pecuniary jurisdiction becomes sufficient. The Registry was directed to retransfer the suit to the City Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to retransfer C.S.No.689 of 2007 to the City Civil Court, Chennai.

Dr.P.a.Subramanian Vs S.Ramasamy and 17 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.06.2014

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

C.S.No.689 of 2007

Dr.P.A. Subramanian

... Plaintiff

S. Ramasamy

¶11

R. Hema

¶12

S. Rangasamy

¶13

Dr.M.K. Subramanian

¶14

Mrs.Parvathi Kailasam

¶15

R. Ragothaman

¶16

M. Kailasam

¶17

Mrs.Vidya Shriram

¶18

R.S. Shriram 10.Mrs.R. Jayalakshmi 11.M. Chellaiya 12.Mrs.Umme Hani 13.Hyder Kutub 14.Mrs.Ummul Baneen 15.Mohammed Shakir 16.Mohamed Taher 17.S. Parthiban

.... Respondents

18.Mrs.P. Geetha

Suit for declaration that the sale deeds bearing Document No.3220/2003, 3221/2003, dated 20.12.2002 Document No.3517/2003 dated 31.10.2003 executed by M.K. Saraswathi Ammal on behalf of Mrs.Saraswathi Ammal in favour of the third, fourth and fifth defendants respectively, in respect of A schedule property, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff; for declaration that the Sale Deeds bearing Document Nos.2657 of 2004, 2283 of 2004, 2284 of 2004, 2301 of 2004, 221 of 2005 alleged to have been executed by the first defendant, on behalf of Mrs.Saraswathi

¶23

Ammal in respect of “B” Schedule property, in favour of the Defendants 6 to 18, are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 18 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment Schedule A and B properties.

¶24

For plaintiff : Mr.K. Hari Shankar

¶25

¶26

For D2 and D.3 : Mr. J. Pachiyappan

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Initially the suit was presented before this court seeking the above reliefs.

¶29

The Registry had returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. The plaint was represented stating that some of the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this court and schedule A of the suit property is also situated at outside the jurisdiction of this court. However, a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, an application in 1864 of 2007 was filed seeking leave of the court to sue the defendants in respect of A schedule property and the leave was granted by an order dated 16.2.2007. Thereafter, the suit was numbered in CS 689 of 2007. At that time of registration of the suit, the suit was valued at Rs.18,41,000/- and the court fees under the High Court Fees Rules 1956 was paid.

¶30

¶31

When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil

¶32

court was enhanced in the year 2010, the suit was transferred

¶33

to the City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S.1237 of 2011. The parties also appeared before the court. The plaintiffs counsel gave a letter to the Registry dated 5.11.2013 stating that a leave was granted by this court and the suit was admitted by this court and therefore, the same cannot be transferred to the city civil court. It was submitted that when clause 12 of Letters Patent applied and once leave is granted this court alone has jurisdiction as held by the division bench of this court reported in 1997 (2) CTC 1(Central Bank of India vs Mr.Joseph and 20 others) . It was also submitted that the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit for a property which is situated outside its jurisdiction and the defendants are also residing outside its jurisdiction. Acting on that letter the Registry called for the case from the city civil court and

¶34

¶35

thereby now it is re-transferred to this court.

¶36

However, the defendants gave a letter through

¶37

their counsel dated 9.12.2013 stating that the suit is withdrawn from the city civil court without any notice to the defendants, who entered appearance and objected to the valuation of the suit; while so, the re-transfer is not proper and therefore, the suit has to be sent back to the city civil court because the valuation is below Rs.25,00,000/-.

¶38

Heard Mr. Hari shankar, learned counsel for the

¶39

plaintiff. Learned counsel would submit that the suit was instituted before this court after obtaining leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent on the ground that “A' schedule of the suit property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and some of the defendants are also residing outside the jurisdiction of this court; after obtaining the leave, the suit was

¶40

¶41

numbered. The learned counsel submitted that it was not on

¶42

the question of valuation of the suit, it was instituted before this court, but only on the question that some of the properties and the defendants were outside the jurisdiction of this court. The learned counsel would further submit that the city civil court cannot have jurisdiction for the properties situated outside the jurisdiction and also cannot have jurisdiction when some of the defendants are residing outside jurisdiction.

¶43

The learned counsel relied on a decision

¶44

reported in 1997 (2) CTC 1(Central Bank of India vs Mr.Joseph and 20 others). He also relied on a decision reported in 2010

¶45

4 CTC 593 (T.T. Ravichandran vs The Secretary to Government, law Department) and unreported judgment dated 21.8.2012 in WP No.28144 and 28145 of 2010.

¶46

On the other hand, Mr.J. Pachiyappan, learned

¶47

¶48

counsel for defendants 2 and 3 would submit that the valuation of the suit was not proper and on appearance, the defendants have raised the question of valuation of the suit. The learned counsel submitted that when the pecuniary jurisdiction of the city civil court was enhanced, all the suits pending before this court were transferred to city civil court and such transfer is within the limit of this court. Therefore, the same cannot be called back to this court and that too, without notice to the defendants.

¶49

Heard and perused the materials available on

¶50

record.

¶51

The continuity of the suit, which was instituted,

¶52

transferred and re-transferred to this court is questioned. The suit for declaration and other reliefs was valued at Rs.18,40,000/- at the time of filing before this court. While

¶53

¶54

instituting the suit, the plaintiff filed Application No.1864/2007

¶55

, under Order III Rule 1 of Original Side Rules r/w Order XIV Rule 8 of the same rules. Application was allowed and leave was granted on 16.2.2007 and the suit was numbered as C.S.No.689 of 2007. Order III Rule 1 of Original Side Rules

¶56

relates to leave to sue. This petition has to be filed only under that Order and Rule even to seek leave under clause 12 of Letters Patent. The materials portion of clause 12 of Letters Patent is as follows:

¶57

'We do further ordain that the

¶58

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

¶59

¶60

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”.

¶61

In 1997 (2) CTC 1(Central Bank of India vs

¶62

Mr.Joseph and 20 others) , a Division Bench of this court was

¶63

deciding a batch of transfer applications by the plaintiffs in different suits which were earlier transferred from the original

¶64

side of this court to the City Civil Court, Chennai, pursuant to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of city civil court, seeking re-transfer.

¶65

The Division Bench considered Sec.16 of Civil

¶66

Procedure Code which deals with suits to be instituted where the subject matter situate. The Division Bench was also

¶67

¶68

considering that the suits filed were mortgage suits and the

¶69

properties situate were outside the jurisdiction of the city civil court. Therefore, held that the suits can not be transferred to the City Civil Court.

¶70

Secs.16 and 17 of CPC reads as follows:

¶71

16. Suits to be instituted where

¶72

subject matter situate – Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits,

¶73

(a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits

¶74

(b) for the partition of immovable property

¶75

© for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage or or charge upon immovable property

¶76

(d) for the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property

¶77

(e) for compensation for wrong to

¶78

¶79

immovable property

¶80

(f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.

¶81

Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.

¶82

17. Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts:

¶83

¶84

Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:

¶85

Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the entire calm is cognizable by such Court.

¶86

The Hon'ble Division Bench referred sub clause

¶87

(c) of Sec.16 which relates to mortgage suits. Another Division Bench of this court in the case of Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd vs Durga Iron Works, and 3 others , reported in 1995 (2 CTC 602 also dealt with matter relating to mortgage suits situated outside the jurisdiction of Original Side of the High Court and granted leave under clause 12 of Letters

¶88

¶89

patent.

¶90

In both the Division Bench orders, the

¶91

discussion was the term “ the case of the suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property situated within the jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court in other cases cause of action have arisen either wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court”.

¶92

However, the case before us relates to right or interest in two immovable properties, one - within the jurisdiction of this court, as well as City Civil Court and another, outside the jurisdiction. The suit was laid before this court due to the higher valuation of the suit.

¶93

It is not uncommon that the suits are filed before the City Civil Court, subject to pecuniary jurisdiction,

¶94

¶95

where one property situate within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and a part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction.

¶96

The contention of the plaintiffs counsel is that when a leave is granted under clause 12 of Letters Patent, the suit cannot be transferred to City Civil Court. This cannot be accepted. Had it not been for the valuation of the suit at the time of filing at Rs.18,40,000/-, the plaintiff would not have approached this court to seek leave as one of the property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court. Now, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court has been increased and the Registry had rightly transferred the suit to the City Civil Court.

¶97

The defendant had also entered appearance and filed written statement in 2013. Even assuming that the

¶98

¶99

plaintiff has a reason for re-transfer, he should have filed an

¶100

application for transfer by invoking the jurisdiction of this court. A letter has been given to the Registry for re-transfer

¶101

and without notice to the defendants, the Registry has recalled the suit, which is not appreciable.

¶102

This court is of the considered view that the suit is maintainable before the City Civil Court, having pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as one of the property is situated and many of the defendants are residing within its jurisdiction.

¶103