The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit is determined by the nature of the relief sought and the location of the properties involved, especially in cases where the suit is for land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in Application No. 1799 of 2022 in Civil Suit Diary No. 39450 of 2022 on the file of this Court.)R. Mahadevan, J

1. The appellant has filed this intra-court appeal aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the learned Judge rejecting his application bearing No. 1799 of 2022 filed to grant leave to institute the suit in respect of item Nos. I to VI, VIII, XIII to XV of the properties morefully described in the plaint in C.S.D. No. 39450 of 2022.

2. The appellant, as plaintiff, has instituted the suit praying to grant a decree directing the defendants (a) to specifically perform the family arrangements dated 10.08.2018, including the oral family arrangement dated 09.09.2002 arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties or else appoint an officer of this Court or an Advocate Commissioner to enforce the family arrangements dated 10.08.2018 including the oral family arrangement dated 09.09.2022 arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties; (b) to declare the Settlement deed dated 23.07.2021 bearing Doc.No.2058 of 2021 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on the file of Sub Rgistrar Office, Marakkanam as null and void; (c) to declare the Special Power of Attorney dated 25.03.2022 bearing document No. 26 of 2022 executed by the first defendant in favour of Mr. Sridharan on the file of Sub-Registrar Office, Mylapore as null and void; and (d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any person from in any manner alienating and/or dealing with the suit properties morefully described in the plaint; and for costs.

3. According to the appellant / plaintiff, the properties referred to in the Memorandum of Family Arrangements arrived at in the years 2002 and 2018 include the properties situated within the jurisdiction of this Court as well as outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, by way of abundant caution, he has sought the leave of the Court to institute the suit insofar as it relates to the properties, which are listed as item Nos.1 to VI, VIII, XIII to XV of the plaint. These properties are lying outside the jurisdiction of this Court and they are also required to be dealt with under the above suit. The prayer sought for in the suit is also one for declaration to declare the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 23.07.2021 as null and void. It is further stated that the properties covered in the said settlement deed dated 23.07.2021 are situated at Aatchikadu and a part of cause of action arises out of the jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, the properties included as item Nos.I to VI, VIII, XIII to XV of the plaint schedule properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. However, a major part of the cause of action to institute the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, where the other properties listed in the plaint schedule are lying. Therefore, along with the suit, the application viz., A.No.1799 of 2022 seeking leave to institute the suit in respect of item Nos. I to VI, VIII, XIII to XV has been filed.

4. Opposing the application seeking leave, the first defendant/first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that admittedly, the properties referred to as item Nos. I to VI, VIII, XIII to XV of the plaint schedule are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The first respondent specifically denied the oral family arrangements said to have taken place on 09.09.2002 and 10.08.2018. According to the first respondent, no such family arrangements had ever taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants and therefore, the foundation for laying the suit itself is fal