Jurisdiction of Madras High Court to hear the suit.

DAVID ANNOUSSAMY, J.: - This is an order of reference from a learned single Judge of this Court on the point of jurisdiction.

2. The suit is one on equitable mortgage by the deposit of title deeds for sale of the immovable property situated in Ooty, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The mortgage by deposit of title deeds was created at Madras and all the defendants reside in Madras. It was contended by the defendants that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff retorted that a suit on mortgage for sale of the mortgage property was not a suit for land and that, therefore, was within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The controversy between the parties, therefore, turned oh the point whether a suit on mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property was one for land or not. The learned single Judge after reviewing the position of law on this question found that he could not agree with the view taken recently by another single Judge, in the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. Arvind Distillery and Chemicals Ltd., (1982) 1 Mad LJ 188: (AIR 1982 Mad 273). Consequently, he passed an order referring the above question to a larger Bench.

4. In the course of arguments on the above point the fact that all the defendants are residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court was highlighted. If such is the case, the question whether a suit on mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property is a suit for land or not may not arise at all in this case. It is to this aspect of the question that we shall advert now. The original jurisdiction of this Court in civil matters is indicated in Cl.12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. That clause reads as follows: -

"And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction shall be empowered to receive, try and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisin either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally works for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Madras, in which the debt or mortgage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed one hundred rupees."

In order to understand quickly and easily, this clause which is somewhat clumsily drafted, the relevant portion of the clauses may be re-written as follows : -

1. If, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property such land or property shall be situated. either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court.

2. Or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen

3. Or, if the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business, or personally work for gain.

within such limits

Grammatically, this is the only reading possible in view of the respective places in the sentence of the phrases 'within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court' and 'within such limits'. Any other reading would be illogical. The resulting position is that this Court has jurisdiction when the defendant resides within the local limits, wherever the property may be situated.

5. It is seen that in the first two parts, the jurisdiction is determined with reference to the subject-matter, whereas in the third part the jurisdiction is indicated with reference to the parties to