Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Dipak Kumar Sen
HINDUSTHAN GAS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
ADHISH CHANDRA SINHA - Respondent
Suit 583 Of 1980
Decided On : 03/25/1981
JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR LAND - LEAVE TO SUE UNDER CLAUSE 12 OF THE LETTERS PATENT - REVOCATION - WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 13(2) - DECLARATION REGARDING TWO DOCUMENTS - UNDUE INFLUENCE, DURESS AND COERCION - CAUSE OF ACTION - PARTIAL CAUSE OF ACTION WITHIN JURISDICTION - REAL PURPOSE OF SUIT - AFFIRMATION AND CONTINUANCE OF TENANCY OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED OUTSIDE JURISDICTION - NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, seeking declarations regarding two documents - a purported agreement dated 16th January 1979 and a notice dated 13th/14th June 1980 - alleging undue influence, duress, and coercion by the defendant. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the suit related to land and immovable property situated outside the court's jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the declarations sought because the material parts of their cause of action, namely, the alleged undue influence, duress, and coercion, were not stated to have occurred within the court's jurisdiction. The court also found that the real purpose of the suit was to affirm and continue the tenancy of an immovable property situated outside the court's jurisdiction, which was not permissible.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the declarations sought regarding the two documents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "suit for land" in Clause 12 of the Letters Patent includes suits for the determination of title to land, suits for possession of land, and other suits in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of land. 2. The plaintiffs' cause of action for the declarations sought was based on alleged undue influence, duress, and coercion, which were not stated to have occurred within the court's jurisdiction. 3. The real purpose of the suit was to affirm and continue the tenancy of an immovable property situated outside the court's jurisdiction, which was not permissible.
Final Decision: The court revoked the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and directed the plaint to be taken off the file. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE property in dispute in this suit is premises No. 2/8b, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta irnmoveablc property situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. On the 8th July 1980 M/s. Hindusthan Gas and Industries Ltd. , the plaintiff No. 1 and Ramjilal Batlwal, its president, the plaintiff Number 2 instituted this suit against Adhish Chandra Sinha, the defendant. The material averments in the plaint are as follows :-- (a) In terms of several deeds of leas'e executed by the defendant from time to time the said premises were demised in favour of the plaintiff No. 1. (b) The tenancy is governed by the provisions of the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act, 1956. (c) The defendant under cover of his letter dated 4th January 1979 sent a draft agreement dated the 14th January 1979 to the plaintiffs. The Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 signed the said document on the 16th January 1979. (d) The signature in the said document was made by the Secretary of the plaintiff No. 1 by reason of undue influence, coercion and duress by the defendant on the plaintiffs and the document records that the plaintiff No. 1 has given notice to quit and vacate the said premises on the 31st October 1979. (e) The said document dated the 16th January 1979 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs and subsequent thereto the defendant has accepted the plaintiff No. 1 as a tenant in respect of the demised premises. (f) By a letter dated 13th/14th June 1980 the advocate of the defendant has served a notice on the plaintiff No. 1 calling upon the latter to quit and vacate the demised premises in terms of the said document dated 16th January 1979. The said notice is not binding on the plaintiffs. (g) it is alleged that the defendant and its servants and agents have committed various acts of nuisance and have been threatening the plaintiffs that they would cease to maintain the essential services to the said premises.
( 2 ) ON the averments as aforesaid the plaintiffs have craved leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and claimed the following reliefs:--" (a) A declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 is a monthly tenant in respect of the demised premises governed by the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act; (b) A declaration that the purported document dated the 16th January, 1979 and the letter dated the 13/14th June, 1980 are void and/or voidable and the same should be delivered up and cancelled; (c) The defendant, his servants and agents be restrained from giving effect to and/or acting upon the purported document dated 16th January 1979 and the said letter dated 13th/14th June, 1980; (d) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agents from causing any disturbance to the supply of essential services to the demised premises, peaceful use and occupation thereof by the plaintiffs, their servants and agents and their right of egress to and ingress from the said premises; (e) permanent injunction restraining the defendant his servants and agents from committing nuisances and other reliefs. "
( 3 ) IN this application of the defendant it is alleged that the reliefs claimed in this suit wholly relate to and affect the title and possession of the said premises outside the original jurisdiction of this Court. The suit is a suit for land and involves determination of questions relating to right, title, interest and possession of land and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is also alleged thai no part of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court except that it is is pleaded that the agreement of lease was entered into within the jurisdiction.
( 4 ) THE defendant prays that leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked and the plaint in this suit be directed to be taken off the file.
( 5 ) THIS application is opposed. An affidavit of the plaintiff No. 1 affirmed on the 17th September 1980 has been filed in
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
