1. A short but interesting question of law that arises for my consideration in this suit is: “whether the high court of bombay would have a jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale and possession of a property situate outside the limits of its original civil jurisdiction, if leave under clause xii of the letters patent is obtained prior to the filing of the suit?”

2. One ratanchand hirachand was an owner of certain agricultural lands situate at aundh in taluka haveli in registration district pune. (for short “the suit land”). According to the plaintiffs, under an oral agreement for sale, terms of which are recorded in a draft agreement for sale (exhibitj to the plaint), ratanchand agreed to sell the suit land to them. On refusal of the defendants to sell the plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance of the oral agreement for sale against defendant nos.1 to 5 after obtaining a leave under clause xii of the letters patent. Defendant nos.1 and 2 were joined as executors of the will of ratanchand and defendant nos.3 and 4 were joined as legatees/beneficiaries under the will. Defendant no.5 who was a receiver of the suit land appointed in some other proceeding (high court suit no.304/54) was also joined as a party. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and defendant no.6, who has subsequently purchased the property from the defendants was added as a party.

3. Issues were initially framed. However, by an order dated 20 december 2011, the court framed an additional issue: “whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? by consent of the parties, the issue was treated as preliminary issue. Counsel for the parties stated that they do not wish to adduce any oral evidence on the issue. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. “the high court of judicature at bombay” was established by the queen’s charter (known as “letters patent, bombay”). Later, by reason of a power conferred under article 231 of the constitution of india, the parliament of india established a common high court, known as “the high court of bombay” for the state of maharashtra and state of goa. (see 20(1) of the goa, daman and diu reorganisation act, 1987). Under section 20(3) of the goa, daman & diu reorganisation act, the high court of bombay has the same jurisdiction powers and authority which the high court of judicature at bombay had immediately before the constitution of the new common high court of bombay. There is no dispute between the parties that the jurisdiction of the high court of bombay including its original civil jurisdiction and its powers are the same as were vested in the high court of judicature at bombay under the letters patent. Clause xii of the letters patent reads as follows: xii. Original jurisdiction as to suits – and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at bombay, in the exercise of its original 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 causes court at bombay, or the bombay city civil court.

5. Clause xii of the letters patent can be conveniently divided into two parts. The first part relates to the suits relating to land or immovable property and the second part relates to all other cases i.e.suits other than the suits for land and other immovable properties. In