A suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to an immovable property situated outside the Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction of the High Court is a suit for land and the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to receive, try and determine the suit.

JUDGMENT :

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.) :

Three applications have been filed in the suit. The first application in order of time is the plaintiff’s injunction application being IA No. GA 1 of 2022. IA No.GA 2 of 2022 is defendants’ application for vacating the order of injunction passed in the plaintiff’s application. The third application being IA No.GA No.3 of 2022 is defendants’ application for rejection of plaint. This application by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 inter alia for rejection of plaint and in the alternative for return of the plaint to the appropriate court is taken up first as the decision in the same will have a significant impact on the other two applications. These two applications will be dealt in the later part of this judgment. A fourth application of 2023 has been filed by the plaintiff subsequent to the hearing of the three applications inter alia for amendment of the plaint due to developments post hearing.

In the suit the plaintiff, a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 has claimed the following relief(s):

“a) Declaration that the purported Deed of Conveyance dated 31st may, 2022 is invalid, ineffective, not binding upon the parties, of no effect, unenforceable and null and void ab initio;

b) Decree for delivery up and cancellation of the purported Deed of Conveyance dated 31st may, 2022;

c) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 from exercising any right in respect of the subject property by virtue of the Deed of Conveyance dated 31st may, 2022;

d) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and its men, agents and assigns from acting on the basis of or in furtherance of or by giving any effect to or in terms of the Deed of Conveyance dated 31st may, 2022;

e) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 and its men, agents and assigns from transferring, selling, alienating, encumbering, charging, changing or howsoever, otherwise deal with the subject property in any manner whatsoever;

f) Injunction;

g) Receiver;

h) Attachment;

i) Costs;

j) Such further or other reliefs.”

Facts of the Case:-

On a perusal of the plaint it appears that the plaintiff company claims to be the owner of a land measuring about 121.75 decimals (equivalent to 73.875 cottahs) comprised of RS/LR Dag nos.978, 1037, 1036, 1042, 1043, 1044,903 953, 961, 1047, 1061, 1062, 959, 1041, 1060, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1100, 1103, 1110, 1178, 1195 and 1198 recorded in LR Khatian nos. 2164 and 2085 Mouza Mohammadpur, JL no.32 under P.S. Rajarhat-742121 (hereinafter referred to as the subject property). The plaintiff also claims that its name is recorded in the municipal records of Rajarhat-Gopalpur Municipality in respect of the subject property.

The plaintiff further says that on 5th August, 2020 the plaintiff received a notice dated 27th July, 2020 from the office of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer (in short BL & LRO) Rajarhat, 24 Parganas (North) wherefrom it transpired to the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 has applied for mutating its name in respect of the subject property. The plaintiff was called for a hearing in respect of such application on 10th August, 2022 and on an enquiry the plaintiff came to know that on or about 2016 the Defendant nos.2 and 3 and the wife of Defendant no.3 as shareholders of the plaintiff company filed a proceeding for oppression and mismanagement under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench being CP no.27 of 2016 against the plaintiff, one Sanjay Bhagat and others. The NCLT by an order dated 20th November, 2016 directed the parties to maintain the status-quo regarding the shareholding pattern and immovable properties. The order of injunction according to the plaintiff is in subsistence. The plaintiff says that the Defendant no.1 is the closely held family company of the Defendant no.3 namely, Sajan Kumar Bhagat. The said Sajan Kumar Bhagat is the brother of Sanjay Kum