The suit is maintainable on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court as it is essentially based on the prayer for a declaration that the MoU is inoperative and no longer binding on the plaintiffs. The possession prayer is solely dependent upon the relief claimed by the plaintiffs regarding the declaration sought for in connection with the MoU and agreements.

P.B. Majmudar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in Suit No. 2551 of 2006 dated 16th December, 2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presenting the same to the proper Court. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that in view of some of the prayers in the plaint, the suit could be said to be a suit for land and, therefore, the suit is required to be filed at the place where the land is located and, accordingly, as per Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the suit on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court is not maintainable. By holding so, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presenting it to the proper Court.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, it is necessary to advert to the averments in the suit as well as the nature of the suit filed by the present appellants.

3. It is the case of the appellants-plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and having its registered office at Mumbai. The plaintiffs, inter alia, carry on the business of manufacture of safety matches. The defendant No.1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Mumbai. As per the averments made in the plaint, defendant No.1 is carrying on the business as developers and builders of immovable properties. The defendant No.2 is a Director and Promoter of defendant No.1. It is stated in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the plaintiffs are the sole owners of certain plots, description of which is given in paragraph 2 of the plaint. All these plots are located in Thane District. It is the case of the plaintiffs that somewhere in October, 2003, the defendants approached the plaintiffs for the purpose of development of three plots in question. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was arrived at between the parties on 29th July, 2004. As per the said MoU, the defendants were to provide plaintiffs’ workers with suitable housing accommodation and on completion of allotment of housing of the workers in plot No. 26, the defendants were to enter into development agreement in respect of plot Nos. 9A and 9B, Village Kohij, Dist. Thane. After completion of plot Nos. 9A and 9B, the defendants agreed to enter into a development agreement for another plot viz. DD15. The MoU was annexed along with the plaint. The relevant clauses have been mentioned in the plaint. As per the averments made in paragraph 7 of the plaint, in pursuance of the MoU the defendants entered into an agreement dated 29th July, 2004 with the Union of employees of the plaintiffs. In pursuance of the said MoU, the plaintiffs also executed and handed over Power of Attorney dated 29th July, 2004 in favour of defendant No.2 with a view to see that defendant No.2 can take necessary permissions from the Government and other statutory authorities in connection with the development of the said three plots. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendants were bound to obtain all the necessary statutory permissions/sanctions in connection with the development of the said land. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into each and every details about the terms and conditions of the MoU. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs handed over physical possession of plot No. NA26 to the defendants only for the purpose of development on the terms and conditions contained in the development agreement dated 21st January, 2005. It is further averred that the ownership title to the plot No. NA26 continued to vest solely in the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the defendants committed various breaches and have not acted as per the MoU. In paragraph 23