Back
High Court Of Calcutta
C. K. BANERJEE
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK - Appellant
Versus
SANATAN BASTUSHILPA PRATISTHAN PVT.LTD - Respondent
Suit 324 Of 1980
Decided On : 07/29/1980
LETTERS PATENT - Clause 12 - Suit for land - Specific performance - Whether suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court maintainable - Whether prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from denying or disputing its obligations under the agreement involves possession of immovable property - Whether prayer for cancellation of a letter seeking to cancel the agreement involves possession of immovable property - Whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be revoked with regard to a particular cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement for sale of flats in a multistoried building. Plaintiff paid 80% of the agreed price and obtained possession of the flats. Disputes arose and Defendant put additional padlocks on the flats and cut off electricity. Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement, perpetual injunction restraining Defendant from denying or disputing its obligations under the agreement, cancellation of a letter issued by Defendant seeking to cancel the agreement, and execution and registration of the conveyance.
Finding of the Court:
1. The suit is not a suit for land merely because it involves possession of immovable property. 2. Prayer for injunction restraining Defendant from denying or disputing its obligations under the agreement does not involve possession of immovable property. 3. Prayer for cancellation of a letter seeking to cancel the agreement does not involve possession of immovable property. 4. Specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court is maintainable if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent cannot be revoked with regard to a particular cause of action.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is a suit for land. 2. Whether prayer for injunction restraining Defendant from denying or disputing its obligations under the agreement involves possession of immovable property. 3. Whether prayer for cancellation of a letter seeking to cancel the agreement involves possession of immovable property. 4. Whether specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court is maintainable. 5. Whether leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent can be revoked with regard to a particular cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A suit for land is a suit for the recovery of immovable property, partition of immovable property, foreclosure or redemption of mortgage of immovable property, determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property, or suits for compensation for wrong to immovable property. 2. A prayer for injunction restraining the defendant from denying or disputing its obligations under an agreement does not involve possession of immovable property. 3. A prayer for cancellation of a letter seeking to cancel an agreement does not involve possession of immovable property. 4. Specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court is maintainable if the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. 5. Leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent cannot be revoked with regard to a particular cause of action.
Final Decision: Application for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, stay of the suit and all proceedings therein and for revocation of the leave under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendant Sanatan Bastushilpa Pratisthan for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, stay of the suit and all proceedings therein and for revocation of the leave under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 2 ) THE defendant is the owner of premises No. 121/1, Netaji Subhas Ch. Eose Road, Tollygunge, and has constructed a multistoried building therein named 'regent Towers' consisting of ground floor and nine upper floors comprising of seventy two flats. By an agreement dated October 10, 1979 the plaintiff agreed to buy and the defendant agreed to sell six two-bed-roomed fiats and six three-bed-roomed flats having distinctive numbers situate on various floors of the said building at or for a total price of Rs. 13,45,200/-, on the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement which was executed at 10, Brabourne Road, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court.
( 3 ) PURSUANT to and in terms of the said agreement on or about October 11, 1979 the defendant furnished a bank guarantee for Rs. 10,76,160/- and the plaintiff thereupon paid to the defendant on December 11, 1979 the said sum of Rs. 10,76,160/- being eighty per cent of the total agreed price, and the defendant delivered up possession of the said twelve flats and made over twelve sets of keys in respect thereof to the plaintiff. There were certain disputes between the parties with regard to the claim of the defendant for an additional amount of Rs. 1,38,000/ -. Sometime in March, 1980 the defendant put additional padlocks to each of the said flats over the locks put by the plaintiff or its officers and cut off the electric connection to the said flats. By a letter dated 14/18th March, 1980 the defendant contended that the said agreement stood cancelled on the expiry of four months stipulated in the said agreement which was, however, not accepted by the plaintiff. Thereupon this suit was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant. The relevant prayers in the plaint with which we are concerned in this application are:-- (a) Decree for specific performance of the said agreement for sale dated October 10, 1979. (d) Perpetual injunction do issue restraining the defendant and their servants and agents and assigns from denying or disputing its obligations under and from acting in any manner contrary to or inconsistent with the said agreement dated October 10, 1979. (e) The letter dated March 14/18, 1980 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff be declared invalid and the same be directed to be delivered up and be cancelled.
( 4 ) PRAYERS (b) and (c) are usual prayers in such suit for specific performance, for execution and registration of the document.
( 5 ) MR. Sankar Ghosh, learned counsel for the defendant petitioner urged that prayer (d) of the plaint involved possession of an immovable property situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court and he referred to paragraphs 13, 14 and 23 of the plaint. In paragraph 13 of the plaint the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has put additional padlocks on the said fiats on the top of the locks already put by the plaintiff OF its officers and had cut off electric connection to the said flats. In paragraph 14 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant wrongfully put the said padlocks with a view to pressurise the plaintiff to yield to the illegal and wrongful demands of the defendant and in paragraph 23 of the plaint the plaintiff has claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from denying or disputing their obligations under or acting in any manner contrary to or inconsistent with the said agreement by keeping the said padlocks on the said flats or otherwise. Mr. Ghosh urged that prayer (d) of the plaint flowed from possessory right claimed by the plaintiff and is based on interference with the possession of the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff has also pleaded that the defendant has cancelled the said ag
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
