A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, which seeks reliefs that would directly affect the title to or possession of land, is a 'suit for land' coming within the ambit of clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and if the suit properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of the court, the leave granted earlier to file the suit can be revoked.

The plaintiff in the suit C.S.No.237 of 1986 has filed this appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.1989 made in Application No. 1818 of 1987 revoking the leave granted holding that his court, on original side, has no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of clause 12 of the Letters Patent. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. Hence his legal representatives are brought on record.

2. In this judgment of ours, we will refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the suit for convenience.

3. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed for a judgment and decree for specific performance against the defendants 1 and 4 directing the 1st defendant and 4th defendant to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, transferring and conveying the property, more fully described in the Schedule hereunder known as Travancore Tea Estates Company Limited together with all buildings, factories, plantations, standing timbers and other machineries, plants erected therein, transport vehicles such as cars, jeeps, lorries, motor cycles, scooters and three wheeler and four wheeler vehicles, after the first defendant obtaining sanction from Reserve Bank of India within a time to be fixed by the court, and in default to direct an Officer of this Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff:

(ii) directing the first defendant to apply to the Reserve Bank of India for permission to sell the said property to the plaintiff for the price mentioned in the agreement to sell and in default direct the officer of this Court who is empowered to execute the sale deed to get the necessary permission;

(iii) directing the defendants and especially the fourth defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; (iv) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the costs of this suit, etc.

4. In the said suit the fourth defendant filed Application No, 1818 of 1987 for revoking the leave granted to file the suit in Application No. 1324 of 1986 by order dated 24.3.1986.

The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement dated 15.8.1973 on the basis of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.459 of 1975 in the City Civil Court, Madras against defendants 1 to 3 for a mandatory injunction directing defendants to perform one of the conditions, contained in the agreement. The said suit was later transferred as ordered in a civil revision petition filed, and the same is now pending in this Court as C.S.No. 116 of 1975.

5. In the present suit C.S.No.237 of 1986 the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for specific performance against defendants 1 and 4 directing them to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff transferring and conveying the suit schedule property and directing the defendants, especially the fourth defendant to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Fourth defendant is a subsequent purchaser from the first defendant under registered sale deed dated 17.9.1976. The suit was filed on 6.1.1986 and leave to institute the same was granted on 24.3.1986 in Application No. 1324 of 1986 as already noticed above. That application was filed on the ground that the fourth defendant is residing and carrying on business outside the jurisdiction of this Court and a part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Application No. 1818 of 1986 was filed by fourth defendant for revocation of the leave granted, stating that the suit is one for land, within the meaning of clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and since the land is not situated within the local limits of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff.

7. The learned single Judge, on the original side after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, on the facts of the case, contentions of the parties, and referring to the various authorities elaborately, pa