An agreement for sale of a property situate outside the jurisdiction of the court cannot be specifically enforced by the court and the plaintiff is not entitled to leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. in respect of possession of the said premises.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit for (a) specific performance of an agreement for sale of a property situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, (b) leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. in respect of possession of the said premises, (c) decree for Rs. 30,000/- with interest thereon at 12 per cent, from 22-1-1948 until payment if title be not found good on such enquiry, (d) alternatively, for refund of Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the said rate and decree for Rs, 10,000/- as compensation, (e) leave under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. in respect of charge on the said property, (f) leave under Clause 12, Letters Patent, (g) Receiver, (h) injunction and (i) costs.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the wife of one Maharaja Bahadur Singh Nahar. The original defendant was one Asoke Mitra who formerly worked as a solicitor of this Court and owned premises No. 43/1, Ramesh Mitra Road, Calcutta, situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The suit was filed in 1949. In 1951 the plaint was amended by the addition of a second defendant Surja Kumar Basak, who claims to have purchased the property from the said Asoke Mitra by a conveyance dated 8-12-1950 and also seeks to establish title as purchaser of the right, title and interest of Asoke Mitra in the said premises at an auction sale held by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, 24-Parganas on 15-6-1950.

( 3 ) ON 22-1-1948 Asoke Mitra entered into an agreement for sale of the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 60,000/- out of which Rs. 30,000/- was payable forthwith as earnest money and/or part payment of the price, the balance being payable at the time of the completion of the purchase. The vendor covenanted to sell the property free from all encumbrances and subject to the approval of his title by the purchaser's solicitors. The sum of Rs. 30,000/- which was paid by the purchaser to the vendor on 22-1-1948 was to form a first and paramount charge on the said premises arid in case the purchase was not completed on any ground whatsoever, it was to carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum. The vendor further covenanted to deliver all documents of title of the said premises within 15 days from the date of the agreement and at his own expense, produce certified copies or abstract of or extract from documents and court proceedings which he might not have in his possession. The vendor was further to make out a good and marketable title at his own cost and the sale was to he completed within four months from the date of the agreement.

( 4 ) CLAUSE 7 of the agreement provides that upon the approval of the title by the purchaser's lawyer, the vendor was to execute and register a proper deed of conveyance in favour of the purchaser or her nominee and the purchaser was to pay the balance of the purchase money on or before the date of the execution of the conveyance, the purchaser being further under an obligation to cause all necessary parties to join in the said conveyance.

( 5 ) CLAUSE 8 of the agreement runs as follows: "the said premises shall be sold free from all encumbrances and if there be any encumbrances outstanding on the date of the completion of the sale the same shall be cleared and released by the vendor at his own cost and shall pay all outstanding rent, rates and taxes and all outgoings in respect of the said premises upto the date of the completion of sale. Simultaneously with the execution of the conveyance the vendor shall give vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the purchaser or her nominee or nominees. "

( 6 ) OTHER clauses are not very material. In the matter of this agreement a pleader practising in the District Court of the 24-Parganas by the name of Ashutosh De was acting for the plaintiff and his signature appears on the agreement for sale as one of the attesting witnesses.

( 7 ) IN the plaint as originally filed the plaintiff, after reciting the above agreement, went on to state in para 4 thereof that although the defendant Asoke Mitter h