Patherya J.

This is an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint and for revocation of leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The case of the petitioner-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that C. S. 144 of 2008 has been filed for a declaration for cancellation of the Deed of Conveyance dated 28th May, 2008 and for perpetual injunction from taking any steps in respect of such deed, as the Deed of Conveyance executed in 2008 is in respect of premises no.P-82, Lake Road, Calcutta which is admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. As the suit is for land this Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain the same and leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked and the plaint be returned to the appropriate Court.

Reliance is placed on (2003) 2 WBLR (Cal) 42 para 15; AIR 1981 Cal 307 and the unreported judgment in C. S 275 of 2007 (M/s. Vikash Metal & Power Ltd. –Vs.- M/s. Niranjan Hi-tech Ltd. & Ors.). From the deed of conveyance certain rights flow with regard to the enjoyment and possession of the said land. The said Deed also provides for receipt of rent and profits including the right to have the property mutated. This will render the same to be a suit for land, as not only by virtue thereof rights have been vested in the purchaser, cancellation of such rights will affect the possession of not only the purchaser of the suit premises but will give possession so also restore title in favour of the plaintiff-respondent which at present by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance is vested in the purchaser. Paragraph 22 of the plaint has also recognised the invasion of the plaintiff’s right to enjoyment of the property by reason of the said Deed of Conveyance. Any decision taken in the suit is likely to affect the title and possession of the purchaser, which by virtue of Section 55(1)(f) of the Transfer of Property Act will be decided. Therefore, possession which is incidental to conveyance will be affected. This, therefore, renders the instant suit as a suit for land and this Court in view of lack of jurisdiction ought to return the plaint to the appropriate forum. The only ground on the basis of which leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent has been sought is the execution of the deed of conveyance at the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. This will not give rise to any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is also placed on Section 33(1) of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, orders as sought be passed and the plaint be returned. Opposing the said application counsel for the plaintiff- respondent submits that by virtue of cancellation of the deed of conveyance no adjudication of title or possession is sought. In view of the order of status quo, no transfer of share can be effected. It is only in view of the order of status quo passed and the transfer of share effected that the instant suit has been filed. The decree for perpetual injunction is consequential to prayer (a) whereby cancellation is sought of the deed of conveyance. As held in (2001) 7 SCC 698 a suit which does not warrant adjudication of title will not be hit by Order 7 Rule 10. Therefore, the suit is maintainable. Reliance is placed on (2007) 1 CLT 656 for the proposition that ancillary relief is not the guiding factor. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit as held in AIR 1982 Cal. 361 and AIR 1983 Cal. 420. The same will not render the suit as a suit for land as cancellation is sought only in the light of the agreement which is in violation of the order of status quo. For such purpose paragraphs 11, 16 and 20 of the plaint ought to be considered. Courts within whose jurisdiction documents have been executed and registered will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and for the said proposition reliance is placed on AIR 1950 Cal 510. The agreement, in view of the order of status quo, is a nullity.