The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for land is not maintainable in a court's jurisdiction if the land is not situated within that jurisdiction.

R. SUBBIAH, J.,

1. A.No.2041 of 2012: This is an application filed by defendants 2 and 3 to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff to sue the defendants in A.No.4980 of 2009. A.No.328 of 2012: This is an application filed by defendants 2 and 3 to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 09.02.2010 in O.A.No.1033 of 2009.

2. In both applications, the applicants are defendants 2 and 3, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant. For easy reference, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the plaint.

3. The plaintiff herein filed a suit as against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining them from in any manner disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. 'A' schedule property, namely, 1050/4200 sq.ft. undivided share together with flat is situated at Kodambakkam, within the jurisdiction of this Court. Schedule 'B' property measuring to an extent of 5021.5 sq.ft. together with building thereon measuring to an extent of 1728 sq.ft. in the ground floor and 1008 sq.ft. in the first floor, bearing door No.24-2-153 is situated at Shanthi Nagar, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit properties. Defendants 2 and 3 are the wife and son of the 1st defendant respectively. Schedule 'A' property was purchased by the plaintiff from defendants 2 and 3 through the 1st defendant, as their power agent dated 24.03.2009, under two registered sale deeds both dated 24.03.2009, registered as Document No.885 and 887 of 2009 on the file of S.R.O., Kodambakkam. Schedule 'B' was purchased by the plaintiff from the 3rd defendant through the 1st defendant as his power agent, under a registered sale deed dated 22.08.2009, registered as Doc.No.6943 of 2009 on the file of District Registrar, Nellore. The allegation of the plaintiff is that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of both schedule properties. It appears that there was some dispute between the defendants in sharing the consideration paid by the plaintiff. In the said situation, the plaintiff was called by some third persons claiming to be representatives of defendants 2 and 3 and asked him to vacate the schedule mentioned properties; otherwise, he would be thrown out by force. Similarly, the tenants, who are in occupation of the properties, have also been threatened by them. Hence, the present suit has been filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Since 'B' schedule property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff herein obtained leave in A.No.4980 of 2009 on 01.10.2009 to file a suit before this Court. The plaintiff also filed O.A.No.1033 of 2009 seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This Court, by order dated 09.02.2010, granted an order of interim injunction.

4. On appearance, defendants 1 and 2 filed the present applications (i) to revoke the leave granted by this Court in respect of 'B' schedule property and (ii) to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 09.02.2010 in respect of 'B' schedule property.

5. The main contention of defendants 2 and 3 is that this Court has no jurisdiction with regard to 'B' schedule property, situated in Nellore. The defendants are also residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court i.e. in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the leave granted with regard to 'B' schedule property has to be revoked and the interim injunction with regard to 'B' schedule property has to be vacated.

6. Per contra, the plaintiff filed a common counter stating that the suit 'A' schedule property situated at Kodambakkam is within the jurisdiction. Schedule 'B' property is at Nellore. The defendants threatened the plaintiff that they would