The main legal point established in the judgment is that a "suit for land" should be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the land is situated, as determined by Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act and Section 16 of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers in A.No.7893 of 2019: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying to reject the plaint in the suit in C.S.No.443 of 2013.

in A.No.9951 of 2018: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 and Order III Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act, praying to revoke the leave granted by this Court on 03.07.2023 in A.No.2743 of 2013 in C.S.No.443 of 2013.

in A.No.6780 of 2018: Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act and Order XIV Rule 2(2) read with Section 16 of C.P.C., praying to dismiss the suit as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as it is barred by law under Section 16 of C.P.C. and Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act.

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., praying to implead the proposed party as 18th defendant in C.S.No.443 of 2013.)

Common Order:

1. Application No.7893 of 2019 has been filed by the applicant / first defendant to reject the plaint in the suit in C.S.No.443 of 2013.

1.1. Application No.9951 of 2018 has been filed by the applicant / first defendant to revoke the leave granted by this Court in A.No.2743 of 2013 in C.S.No.443 of 2013 dated 03.07.2013.

1.2. Application No.6215 of 2018 has been filed by the applicant / plaintiff to implead the proposed party as 18th defendant in C.S.No.443 of 2013.

1.3. Application No.6780 of 2018 has been filed by the applicant / first defendant to dismiss the suit as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as it is barred by law under Section 16 C.P.C. and Clause 12 of Letters Patent for High Court of Madras [hereinafter called as ‘Clause 12 of Letters Patent’].

Application in A.No.9951 of 2018 in brief:-

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs:-

“(a) to declare that the unauthorised alienation of the properties by way of Sale Deeds as more fully stated in the schedule on the respective tables as such executed by the first defendant to defendants 3 to 16 as the case may be declared as invalid and is not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of his 1/3rd subsisting share and rights over the said properties;

alternatively;

(b) to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to have personal decree against the defendants 1 to 16 herein by directing them to pay 1/3rd value of the market price jointly or severally as fixed by this Court as on the date of the judgment and decree with respect to the properties so purchased by the defendants 3 to 16 as the case may be from the 1st defendant as more fully stated in the table of the respective schedule together with interest at the rate of 18% to be reckoned from the date of their purchase;

(c) to declare that the deed of mortgage executed by the first defendant on 14.12.2010 in favour of the 17thdefendant is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of 1/3rd share and interest of the plaintiff in respect of the properties so mortgaged to the 17th defendant as more fully stated in the respective schedule of this plaint;

(d) to issue mandatory injunction to the 17th defendant to release 1/3rd share and interest in the properties mortgaged by the first defendant;

(e) to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 17 from either alienating or altering or encumbering the respective properties sold or mortgaged to them by the first defendant as the case may be and thus render justice;

(f) to issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1, 5, 7, 8 & 9 from using or letting the godowns built over the suit property either by themselves or by anyone claiming through them.

(g) to award costs of this suit.”

2.1. By seekin