A suit to recover money due under a mortgage, when tested against the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court and of the Federal Court, cannot be classified as a suit for land.

1. These are Applications for leave to institute suits on the original side of this Court. The plaintiffs in the proposed suits are the applicants. The proposed suits are for recovery of money by enforcement of equitable mortgages, created by deposits of tide deeds within the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court. The prayers include sale of the immovable properties covered by such deposits of title deeds, in satisfaction of the money claims. But, all the immovable properties, covered by such deposits of title deeds, are situate outside the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court. Mainly faced with this contingency; but urging the feature that the cause of action has partially arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and other similar features, the plaintiffs have sought for leave to institute the suits on the original side of this Court. In Application No. 1752 of 1989, M.Srinivasan, J., who earlier dealt with it, found conflicting views; one by Moore, J. in Nalum Lakshmikantham and another v. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar and others (1904) ILR 27157) and the other by Shanmukham, J. in State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. Arvind Distillery and Chemicals Ltd., Madras and others (AIR 1982 Madras 273); and deemed fit to refer the matter to a Bench of this Court and the said Application has been listed before the Bench. Subsequently, similar matters have also been listed before the Bench. That is how we are seized of these Applications.

2. The question that has got to be resolved depends upon the interpretation that we should put on the set of expressions ‘suits for land or other immovable property’ occurring in clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court. As already stated, the proposed suits are for recovery of money by enforcement of equitable mortgages clause 12, as a whole, reads as follows:

“12. Original jurisdiction as to suits:-

And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary or 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 arisen, either wholly or in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordina ry 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 work for again, 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 at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property used for does not exceed one hundred rupees.”

Dissected and rearranged conveniently, the implications of the relevant portions of clause 12 of the Letters Patent, relating to suits for land or other immovable property, can be summed up as follows:

“(i) In the case of a suit ‘for land or other immovable property’, if such land or property is situate wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, the suit will be competent without a necessity of obtaining any leave;

(ii) if such land

wholly outside the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, such a suit will be incompetent before this Court;

(iii) if, however, such land or property is situate only in part within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court, the rest being outside such jurisdiction, the suit can be laid before this Court, provided leave is obtained.”

Can it be stated that the suits of the present nature are suits for land or other immovable property and since all the immovable properties are outside the jurisdiction of the original side of this Court, the proposed suits are incompetent be