High Court Of Calcutta
Barin Ghosh
UCO BANK - Appellant
Versus
RATNI DEVI JAIN - Respondent
G. A. 219 Of 1996
Decided On : 01/31/1997
Suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property located outside the jurisdiction of the court is a suit for land and the court cannot entertain such a suit unless the cause of action arises wholly within the jurisdiction of the court or the defendant resides or carries on business or works for gain within such limits. However, by virtue of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff can ask for possession in the suit for specific performance and the court can provide in the decree itself that upon payment by the plaintiff of the consideration money within the given time, the defendant should execute the deed and put the plaintiff in possession.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell three flats to them, with four covered garages, in a building to be constructed at the said premises being No. 62/7, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta-700019, in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees. The said premises is situated outside the jurisdiction of this court. The defendants contended that the suit is a suit for land wholly situate outside the jurisdiction of the court; whereas the plaintiff contended otherwise.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit is a suit for land and the court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit at the time when the plaint was presented in this court. However, by virtue of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff can ask for possession in the suit for specific performance and the court can provide in the decree itself that upon payment by the plaintiff of the consideration money within the given time, the defendant should execute the deed and put the plaintiff in possession.
Issues: Whether the suit is a suit for land or other immovable property and whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property located outside the jurisdiction of the court is a suit for land and the court cannot entertain such a suit unless the cause of action arises wholly within the jurisdiction of the court or the defendant resides or carries on business or works for gain within such limits. However, by virtue of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the plaintiff can ask for possession in the suit for specific performance and the court can provide in the decree itself that upon payment by the plaintiff of the consideration money within the given time, the defendant should execute the deed and put the plaintiff in possession.
Final Decision: Application of the defendants allowed. Plaint filed in the instant suit to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented in the appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the tangible immovable property, being the subject matter of the contract, is situate.
( 1 ) THE Court:-This is an application of the defendants seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is a suit for land situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and thus, depriving this court of its authority to entertain or try the suit; alternatively the issue as to the maintainability of the suit in this court or lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain or try the suit be heard and determined as a preliminary issue before the hearing of any other issues.
( 2 ) IN the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:--" (A) Specific performance of the agreement as mentioned in paragraph 9 hereof by directing the defendants to execute and register the conveyance in respect of the said three flats, of the total carpet area of not less than 3,000 sq. ft. (each having a carpet area of 1000 sq. ft.) with four covered garages or car parking spaces in a covered area together with all rights, benefits and advantages of the common facilities and conveniences reserved for common use of the occupants of the proposed new building at the premises being No. 62/7, Ballygunge circular Road. Calcutta-700019, in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees. (B) In the event the defendants fail to execute such conveyances, the Registrar, Original Side, of this Hon'ble Court, be directed to execute and register the conveyances to respect of the said three flats as fully described in prayer (a), in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees. (C) Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to renew the Bank Guarantee as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the plaint or issue new Bank Guarantee as per the terms of the agreement dated December, 8, 1984 in favour of the plaintiff, for the rent payable by the defendants to the Landlord of the temporary accommodation provided to the plaintiff, for the period commencing from the date of the decree till execution of the conveyances with regard to the three flats and four covered car parking spaces as fully described in prayer (a ). (D) Administration. (E) Receiver. (F) Injunction. (G) Costs. (H) Further or other reliefs. "
( 3 ) IN support of the aforementioned reliefs, the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint, inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted in premises No. 62/7, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta, under a registered indenture of lease. While the plaintiff was enjoying the lease right in the said premises, the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 approached the plaintiff with the proposal that if the plaintiff temporarily shifted from the said premises, the said defendants would construct a building there at and make over to the plaintiff on ownership basis three flats of 1000 sq. ft. each with four garages free of costs and also arrange for temporary accommodation for the plaintiff during the period of construction. The plaintiff agreed to the said proposal for exchange of tenancy right in respect of the said premises for right of ownership of three flats or the total carpet area of 3000 sq. ft. and four covered garages or car parking space in the new building to be constructed at the said premises. Accordingly on 8th December, 1984 an agreement was entered by and between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, which agreement was subsequently modified by an agreement dated 10th February, 1987. As it appears, the agreement dated 8th December, 1984 was subject to the defendants purchasing the ownership right in the said premises from the then owners thereof, and on 28th August, 1985 the defendants by obtaining nine conveyances in their favour acquired the ownership right in the said premises, which was recorded in the agreement for modification dated 10th February, 1987. The plaintiff has contended that it has performed its part of the obligation under the agreement by vacating the said premises and shifting to the temporary accommodation provided by the defendants at premises No. 59/2a, Pratapaditya Road, Calc
Debendra Nath Chowdhury v. Southern Bank Ltd.
Kartic Chandra Pal v. Dibakar Bhattacharjee
Janardan Kishor v. Giridharilal
Babu Lal v. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal
Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Dipchand
Hungerford Investment Trust Ltd. v. Hardidas Mundhra
Debabrata Tarafder v. Biraj Mohan Bardhan
Dhiraj Bala Karia v. Jethia Estate Pvt. Ltd.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.