Partly allowed

Mr G.N.V. Mohan Raju and Another v. Mr. v Poologapandian and Another

Madras HC17 Mar 2022A/4202/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal questioning the grant of leave to file a suit for specific performance and recovery of possession regarding land outside this Court's territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held the suit maintainable but ordered return of the plaint to the plaintiff to file in the competent court.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the applicants/appellants to revoke the order, but the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff to present before the competent court.

Mr G.N.V. Mohan Raju and Another Vs Mr. v. Poologapandian… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

A.No.4202 of 2021 in A.No.2930 of 2014 in C.S.(D).No.14140 of 2014

¶7

C.S.(D).No.14140 of 2014 & A.No.2930 of 2014:-

¶8

Mr. V. Poologapandian, Son of P. Velaiah,

¶9

Mr. V. Muthupandian, Son of P. Velaiah,

¶10

Both jointly carrying business At M/s. Abi Real Estates, having office at No.2, J.J. Complex, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai - 600 040.

¶11

...Applicants/Plaintifffs

¶12

versus

¶13

Mr. G.N.V.MohanRaju, Son of G.Venkatasamy Raja, Vas Residency, Flat No. A-5, No. 23, Saravana Street, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶14

Mr. G. M. Sivakumar,

¶15

¶16

Son of G.N.V.MohanRaju, No. 2C, RamaniamMahalakshmiAppartments, No. 33/82, MoahalakshmiKoil Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.

¶17

...Respondents/Defendants

¶18

A.No.4202 of 2021:- 1. Mr. G.N.V.Mohan Raj, S/o. G.Venkatasamy Raja, Vas Residency, Flat No. A-5, No. 23, Saravana Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. 2. Mr. G. M. Sivakumar, S/o. G.N.V.Mohan Raju, No. 2C, Ramaniam Mahalakshmi Appartments, No. 33/82, Mahalakshmi Koil Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.

¶19

...Applicants/Defendants

¶20

versus

¶21

Mr. V. Poologapandian, S/o. P. Velaiah, 2. Mr. V. Muthupandian, S/o. P. Velaiah, Both jointly carrying business At M/s. Abi Real Estates, having office at No.2, J.J. Complex, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai - 600 040.

¶22

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

¶25

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order to revoke the order leave granted expartee by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 29-04-2014 and made in A. No.2930 of 2014 in C.S.D.No.14140 of 2014.

¶26

This Application having been heard on 14.03.2022 in the presence of Mr. A.Arumugam, Advocate for the Applicants herein and Mr. R. Balachandran, Advocate for the respondents herein and upon reading the judge's summons and the affidavit of G.N.V.Mohan Raju filed herein and the order dated 29.04.2014 made in A.No.2930 of 2014 and having stood over for consideration till this date and coming on this day before this Court for orders in the presence of said advocates for the parties hereto and the learned counsel for the applicants/defendants contended that the reliefs sought for in the suit itself is a suit for land and such land is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence the leave granted by this Court has to be revoked and this Court having observed that for want of territorial jurisdiction a plaint can not be rejected, it can be either

¶27

returned to the plaintiff to present before the proper Court or the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ itself can send the plaint to the Court which has got territorial jurisdiction

¶28

¶29

over the suit property and since in this case till now the plaint has not been

¶30

taken on file and also not numbered, it is ordered:-

¶31

That the Registry, be and is hereby directed to return the plaint to the

¶32

plaintiff for enabling him to present before the Competent Court which has got the jurisdiction over the suit property.

¶33

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022.

¶34

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(O.S. II) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶35

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

¶38

ARS 30.03.2022

¶39

A.No.4202 of 2021 in A.No.2930 of 2014 in C.S.(D).No.14140 of 2014

¶40

ORDER

¶41

DATED : 17.03.2022

¶42

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶43

FOR APPROVAL: 31.03.2022

¶44

APPROVED ON : 05.04.2022

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶46

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶48

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶49

THURSDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

¶50

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶51

A.No.4202 of 2021 in A.No.2930 of 2014 in C.S.(D).No.14140 of 2014

¶52

C.S.(D).No.14140 of 2014 & A.No.2930 of 2014:-

¶53

Mr. V. Poologapandian, Son of P. Velaiah,

¶54

Mr. V. Muthupandian, Son of P. Velaiah,

¶55

Both jointly carrying business At M/s. Abi Real Estates, having office at No.2, J.J. Complex, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai - 600 040.

¶56

...Applicants/Plaintifffs

¶57

versus

¶58

Mr. G.N.V.MohanRaju, Son of G.Venkatasamy Raja, Vas Residency, Flat No. A-5, No. 23, Saravana Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶59

Mr. G. M. Sivakumar, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Son of G.N.V.MohanRaju, No. 2C, RamaniamMahalakshmiAppartments, No. 33/82, MoahalakshmiKoil Street,

¶60

¶61

Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.

¶62

...Respondents/Defendants

¶63

A.No.4202 of 2021:-

¶64

Mr. G.N.V.Mohan Raj, S/o. G.Venkatasamy Raja, Vas Residency, Flat No. A-5, No. 23, Saravana Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶65

Mr. G. M. Sivakumar, S/o. G.N.V.Mohan Raju, No. 2C, Ramaniam Mahalakshmi Appartments, No. 33/82, Mahalakshmi Koil Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.

¶66

...Applicants/Defendants

¶67

versus

¶68

Mr. V. Poologapandian, S/o. P. Velaiah, 2. Mr. V. Muthupandian, S/o. P. Velaiah,

¶69

Both jointly carrying business At M/s. Abi Real Estates, having office at No.2, J.J. Complex, Thirumangalam, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai - 600 040.

¶70

...Respondents/Plaintiffs

¶71

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an

¶72

order to revoke the order leave granted expartee by this Hon'ble Court in its

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶74

order dated 29-04-2014 and made in A. No.2930 of 2014 in

¶75

¶76

C.S.D.No.14140 of 2014.

¶77

This Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing,

¶78

the Court made the following order:-

¶79

This application has been filed seeking to revoke the ex-parte order of leave granted by this Court on 29.04.2014.

¶80

2 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is not maintainable. The reliefs sought for by the respondents/plaintiffs itself is a suit for the land and such land is not within the vicinity of territorial jurisdiction of this Court and it is situated much away at Viralur Village, Elappur Taluk, Pudukottai District. Even the applicants/defendants are not the permanent resident covering territorial jurisdiction of this Court. To support his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 2019 3 CTC 228 (K.Paranthaman, Proprietor,

¶81

American Organic Food Products vs. C.Padmanabhan; Ohm Water Beverages Company and others).

¶82

3 Placing reliance on the above decision, the learned counsel for

¶83

the applicants/defendants contended that the suit filed for by the respondents/plaintiffs is for a land and the same is not maintainable, since

¶84

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶85

¶86

the land situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore

¶87

the leave granted by this Court has to be revoked and the plaint is liable to be rejected.

¶88

4 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that in the plaint, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of specific performance and for permanent injunction against the applicants/defendants. It is not a suit for land and hence the leave granted by this Court is reasonable and the plaint is also in order. Further, the respondents/defendants are residing in the address shown in the plaint, which comes within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence the suit is maintainable. The contentions raised by the applicants/defendants is liable to be rejected.

¶89

5 Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

¶90

the materials available on record.

¶91

6 It is seen that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance, permanent injunction, direction for recovery of

¶92

money and for compensation. This Court by order dated 29.04.2014 granted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ leave and the applicants filed the present application seeking to revoke the

¶93

¶94

same on the ground of maintainability.

¶95

7 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶96

applicants/defendants that the reliefs sought for in the suit itself is a suit for land and such land is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and hence the leave granted by this Court has to be revoked. It is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2001) 7

¶97

Supreme Court Cases 698 (Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd., vs. Daulat and

¶98

another, w herein it was held as follows:

¶99

18. In the instant case the suit is for specific

¶100

performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property wherein relief of delivery of the suit property has not been specifically claimed, as such it cannot be

¶101

treated as a “suit for land”.

¶102

19. We cannot accept the contention of

¶103

Mr.Chitale that the suit is for acquisition of title to the

¶104

land and is a “suit for land”. In its true sense, a suit

¶105

simpliciter for specific performance of contract for

¶106

sale of land is a suit for enforcement of terms of

¶107

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶108

contract. Th title to the land as such is not the subject-

¶109

¶110

matter of the suit.

¶111

8 In the present case on hand, the relief of delivery of item-III of the Suit property has been specifically claimed by the respondent/plaintiff as such it can be treated as a “suit for land” for the following reason:

¶112

“....as such put the second plaintiff in possession of

¶113

item-III of the schedule property and on his failure this Court may be pleased to by permitting the second plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000.00 in the Court deposit and on such deposit execute the registered sale deed for the item-III of the schedule property in the name of the second plaintiff and as such put the second plaintiff in possession of item-III of the schedule property”

¶114

9 A careful reading of the reliefs sought for by the respondent/ plaintiff would go to show that though he has not sought delivery of possession directly, he sought the same in other words. A clever drafting of the plaint will not confer any right on the respondent/plaintiff to sue against the settled propositions of law.

¶115

10 The decision of the Division Bench of this Court cited supra

¶116

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶117

¶118

squarely applicable to the present case on hand and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is answered and his application to revoke the leave granted by this Court is liable to be allowed.

¶119

11 However, for want of territorial jurisdiction a plaint can not be rejected, it can be either returned to the plaintiff to present before the proper Court or the Court itself can send the plaint to the Court which has got territorial jurisdiction over the suit property. Since in this case till now the plaint has not been taken on file and also not numbered, the Registry is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for enabling him to present before the competent Court which has got the jurisdiction over the suit property.

¶120

12 With the above terms, the Application is partly allowed.

¶121

Sd/-P.V.J. 17.03.2022

¶122

//Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶123

COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶124

From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Mr G.N.V. Mohan Raju and Another v. Mr. v Poologapandian and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G.N.V. Mohan Raju and Another v. Mr. v Poologapandian and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.Girdhar Singh Mehta (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Jai Mala Vs Nil

P.Rajarajan Vs Karunakaran

V.S.Ranganath Vs Nil

Mr.v.Chidambaram, S/o. Veerappan, Vs Mr.G.Raja, and 2 others

S.Ramani @ Lourdu Mary Vs S.Mary Sarala

K.Rajeswari Vs Nil