The question of jurisdiction must be decided on the allegation in the pleadings and it must be decided before the case begins whether or not there is a jurisdiction.

R. N. PYNE, J. :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19th February, 1980 of Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. allowing the application made by the respondent No.1, Smt. Anita Jindal, inter alia, for revocation of leave under Cl.12 of the Letters Patent and for other reliefs as will appear from the petition of the said application.

2. The appellant, Ritu Sachdev, filed Suit No.576 of 1979 for partition and administration of the estate left by her deceased father, one Baldev Raj Sachdev, Baldev Raj Sachdev, since deceased, (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) died on 17th August 1975 leaving the respondent No.2 (his wife) and the appellant and the respondent Nos.1 and 3 (his three daughters) as his heiresses and legal representatives and various properties as will appear from the schedule to the plaint. In the suit the plaintiff claimed partition of various properties including immovable properties situated at New Alipore outside the jurisdiction and tenancy rights in respect of shop-room at premises No.14/2, old China Bazar Street where the said deceased used to carry on business under the name and style of printers emporium and of the godown at No.22, Sukeas Lane, Calcutta. The premises No.14/2, old China Bazar Street. and 22, Sukeas Lane, Calcutta are situate within the jurisdiction of this court and on that basis leave under clause 12 was obtained by the appellant.

3. The respondent No.1, Anita Jindal, made the said application for revocation of the leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent on the ground that after the death of the said deceased the business of Printers Emporium was converted into a partnership whereof the respondents were partners and the appellant, then being a minor, was admitted to the benefit of partnership and thereafter by a deed of dissolution dated 1st April, 1978 the said firm was dissolved and the entire assets of the said firm including the tenancy right in respect of the shop-room in premises No.1412, Old China Bazar Street were transferred to one Satish Kant Jindal, the husband of the respondent No.1. The tenancy in respect of the godown at No.22, Sukeas Lane, Calcutta was surrendered and thereafter it was given to Satish Kant Jindal. The said Satish Kant Jindal became and is the tenant in respect of the said shoproom and the godown. As, according to the respondent No.1, no immovable property belonging to the estate were situate within the jurisdiction of this court she made the said application for revocation of the leave under Cl.12 of the Letters Patent.

4. Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. by the judgment and order dated February 19, 1980 dismissed the said application. According to her Lordship, inasmuch as no part of the immovable property was situate within the jurisdiction and further the application for amendment of the plaint and addition of the parties made by the appellant was dismissed it could not be said that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that for the purpose of an application for revocation of leave on the ground of lack of jurisdiction the allegation in the plaint must be deemed to be admitted. So far as the present case is concerned it is clear from paragraph 2 read with schedule item Nos.3 and 4 that some of the immovable properties are situate within the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint it is not open to any party to challenge the said allegation or to urge that this court has no jurisdiction. It was further submitted that if the court wanted to decide the question of jurisdiction it should not have been done so merely on the allegation by one of the defendants to the effect that under the deed of dissolution dated 1-4-1978 the tenancy rights in respect of the shoproom at 14/2, Old China Bazar Street was assigned in favour of the husband of the defendant No.1, Satish Kant Jindal or on the allegation of t