Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit for control of land.

1. For the disposal of these interlocutory applications, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the plaint.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants, or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner entering into the Schedule ‘A’ mentioned property and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant, its men, agents, servants, or anyone to restrict their activities to that of Schedule ‘B’ mentioned property and for costs of the suit. The suit is laid on t he following averments:

A company by name M/s. Citrex Products Ltd. owned an extent of 30.8 acres of land in Thatchur and Peravallur villages of Ponneri Taluk. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the company on 25.8.95 for purchase of 25.8 acres of land out of 30.8 acres of land together with available super structures for a total sale consideration of. Rs.30,00,000 and sum of Rs.1,000 was paid as advance on that date. As the company was unable to clear the debts, it requested the plaintiff for payment of further advance. Accordingly, a fresh agreement was entered on 2.6.97, in pursuance of which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.28,99,000 from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000. On such payment, the company handed over possession, of the property to the plaintiff.

3. The defendant, in and by an agreement dated 12.3.97 entered into with the company, agreed to purchase the remaining 5 acres of land out of 30.8 acres of land owned by the company. On the strength of the said agreement the defendant, though was entitled to possession of the said 5 acres of land only, attempted to interfere with the remaining extent of land. Hence the suit.

4. As the suit property is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff filed A. No. 2916 of 2005 for grant of leave on the ground that the agreement was entered into by the defendant only at Chennai. By an order dated 20.7.2005 this Court granted leave based on the submission of the learned counsel for plaintiff that a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Bank of Madura Ltd. v. Balaramadass & Brothers & others, AIR 1985 Mad. 1, had held under similar circumstances that the leave could be granted. The defendant has taken out A. No. 3210 of 2005 to revoke the said leave.

5. The issue is as to whether in a suit for bare injunction the plaintiff could sustain the suit before this Court in the event of an agreement for sale entered into by the defendant with the company at Chennai. First of all the suit is not laid by the company which has entered into an agreement with the defendant for sale of land. The suit is laid on the basis that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 25.8.95 with the company, for purchase of an extent of 25.8 acres of land out of the total extent of 30.8 acres owned by the company and the defendant had entered into an agreement on 12.3.97 for purchase of the remaining extent of 5 acres of land and on the strength of the said agreement, the defendant is attempting to interfere with the possession of the land held by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that it was put in possession of an extent of

25.8 acres of land covered under the agreement dated 2.6.97 and seeks to protect that possession. Whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the land is a matter for the Court having jurisdiction over the land. An agreement that was entered into between the defendant and the company cannot be a cause for the plaintiff to maintain the suit at Chennai, as admittedly that agreement was not between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even in a suit for bare injunction, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit cannot be entertained as the schedule mentioned property falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. That apart, leave is sought under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent