The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act and the determination of whether a suit is considered a 'suit for land'.

R. Banumathi, J.

Being aggrieved by the order revoking leave in respect of "B" schedule property -land and building situated in Shanthi Nagar, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh and consequently vacating the interim injunction in respect of "B" schedule property, Appellant-Plaintiff has preferred this appeal. For convenience, the parties are referred to hereinafter as per their array in the suit.

2. The Appellant-Plaintiff filed the suit - C.S.No.887 of 2009 against the Respondents-Defendants for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of "A" and "B" schedule properties. Defendants 2 and 3 are the son and wife of 1st Defendant. Case of Plaintiff is that he purchased "A" schedule property measuring undivided share of 1050/4200 sq. ft. together with flat situated at Door No.25, Puliyur Second Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai from Defendants 2 and 3 through 1st Defendant being their power agent, by a registered sale deed dated 24.03.2009. Likewise, Plaintiff purchased "B" schedule property measuring an extent of 5021.= sq. ft. together with building thereon at Door No.24-2-153, Shanthi Nagar, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh from 2nd Defendant, through 1st Defendant acting as his power agent under registered sale deed dated 22.8.2009. According to Plaintiff, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of both "A" and "B" schedule properties.

3. Further case of Plaintiff is that due to dispute between the Defendants for sharing the sale consideration, he was called by some third parties claiming to be the representatives of Defendants 2 and 3 and asked to vacate the plaint schedule properties or otherwise, he would be thrown out by force. Apprehending disturbance to his possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, Plaintiff has filed the suit in C.S.No.887 of 2009 for permanent injunction. Since "B" schedule property is situated in Nellore District, State of Andhra Pradesh, Plaintiff obtained leave in A.No.4980 of 2009 to file suit in the Original Side of Madras High Court. Plaintiff had also filed O.A.No.1033 of 2009 for interim injunction and obtained an order of interim injunction in respect of "A" and "B" schedule properties.

4. Defendants 2 and 3 have filed application A.No.2041 of 2012 to revoke the leave granted in A.No.4980 of 2009 with regard to "B" schedule property. According to Defendants 2 and 3, "B" schedule property is situated in Shanthi Nagar, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh out side the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and that the Original Side of Madras High Court has no jurisdiction with regard to "B" schedule property. Pointing out that Defendants are also residing outside the jurisdiction of Madras High Court i.e. in Andhra Pradesh, Defendants 2 and 3 contended that no part of cause of action had arisen in Madras. Defendants 2 and 3 have also filed A.No.328 of 2012 to vacate the interim injunction granted in O.A.No.1033 of 2009 with regard to "B" schedule property.

5. Plaintiff resisted both the applications contending that the threat made by the Defendants is one and the same for both "A" and "B" schedule properties and that the threat was received at Chennai. Plaintiff contended that part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Madras High Court and prayed for dismissal of both the applications.

6. Upon consideration of rival contentions, learned single Judge revoked the leave holding that suit for permanent injunction is "suit for land" and "B" schedule property situated in Nellore District, State of Andhra Pradesh is not situated within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of Madras High Court. Learned single Judge held that the nature of relief sought for by the Plaintiff would amount to control over the land and that the Plaintiff ought to have filed the suit before the Court only where the suit property is situated and accordingly leave was revoked. Consequent upon revoking leave, the learned single Judge vacated the in