ORDER
D. Murugesan, J.
1. For the disposal of these interlocutory applications, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the plaint.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants, or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner entering into the Schedule ‘A’ mentioned property and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant, its men, agents, servants, or anyone to restrict their activities to that of Schedule ‘B’ mentioned property and for costs of the suit. The suit is laid on the following averments:
A company by name M/s. Citrex Products Ltd. owned an extent of 30.8 acres of land in Thatchur and Peravallur villages of Ponneri Taluk. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the company on 25.8.95 for, purchase of 25.8 acres of land out of 30.8 acres of land together with available super structures for a total sale consideration of. Rs. 30,00,000 and sum of Rs. 1,000 was paid as advance on that date. As the company was unable to clear the debts, it requested the plaintiff for payment of further advance. Accordingly, a fresh agreement was entered on 2.6.97, in pursuance of which the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 28,99,000 from and out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000. On such payment, the company handed over possession, of the property to the plaintiff.
3. The defendant, in and by an agreement dated 12.3.97 entered into with the company, agreed to purchase the remaining 5 acres of land out of 30.8 acres, of land owned by the company. On the strength of the said agreement the defendant, though was entitled to possession of the said 5 acres of land only, attempted to interfere with the remaining extent of land. Hence the suit.
4. As the suit property is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the plaintiff filed A. No. 2916 of 2005 for grant of leave on the ground that the agreement was entered into by the defendant only at Chennai. By an order dated 20.7.2005 this Court granted leave based on the submission of the learned Counsel for plaintiff that a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Bank of Madura Ltd. v. Balaramadass & Brothers and Ors., , had held under similar circumstances that the leave could be granted. The defendant has taken out A. No. 3210 of 2005 to revoke the said leave.
5. The issue is as to whether in a suit for bare injunction the plaintiff could sustain the suit before this Court in the event of an agreement for sale entered into by the defendant with the company at Chennai. First of all the suit is not laid by the company which has entered into an agreement with the defendant for sale of land. The suit is laid on the basis that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement on 25.8.95 with the company, for purchase of an extent of 25.8 acres of land out of the total extent of 30.8 acres owned by the company and the defendant had entered into an agreement on 12.3.97 for purchase of the remaining extent of 5 acres of land and on the strength of the said agreement, the defendant is attempting to interfere with the possession of the land held by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims that it was put in possession of an extent of 25.8 acres of land covered under the agreement dated 2.6.97 and seeks to protect that possession. Whether the defendant has interfered with the possession of the land is a matter for the Court having jurisdiction over the land. An agreement that was entered into between the defendant and the company cannot be a cause for the plaintiff to maintain the suit at Chennai, as admittedly that agreement was not between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even in a suit for bare injunction, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the suit cannot be entertained as the schedule mentioned property falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. That apart, leave is sought under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which reads as under:
“Original jurisdiction as to suits.– And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or, in all other cases, if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court; or if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain, within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause at Madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees.”
The said Clause contains three parts. The first part relates to the exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction to receive, try and determine suits of every description in the case of suit for land or immovable property, where such land or property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. That part relates to the suit for land or immovable property. The second part relates to the cause of action that had arisen either wholly or in part within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. The third part relates to the suit in which the defendant at the time of commencement of the suit dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain within the limits of the Court.
7. On the facts of this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant have their office at Chennai and therefore the third part of the said clause does not apply to the facts of this case. So far as the second part is concerned, the cause of action is traced to the agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the company and the defendant and the company at Chennai. Inasmuch as the cause of action is traced to the agreements that were not entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the second part is also not applicable.
8. So far as the first part of the said clause is concerned, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulate and Anr., 2001 (4) CTC 39, can be usefully referred to. In that case the Supreme Court was considering a suit for specific performance and an application for special leave filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The said Clause is in pari materia to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. While considering the said Clause, the Supreme Court held that if a suit is for determination of title to land, or suit for possession of land, or other suits in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect the title or possession of land, the suit could be filed only in the Court in which jurisdiction the land is situate. It was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for plaintiff that in a suit for bare injunction the said judgment cannot be made applicable, as the plaintiff has not asked for any relief of title or recovery of possession of the land in question and the relief, if granted, would be a judgment in personem and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant with the leave of this Court. In my opinion, the said submission cannot be accepted. Though in a suit for bare injunction the Court would not go into the question of title but is concerned about a prima facie case as to the possession, whether or not possession is claimed, if title to any immovable property is to be directly affected by the result of the decision, the suit would be only a suit for land A Division Bench of this Court in Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd. v. Durga Iron Works and 3 Ors., , has held that a suit involving determination of title and interest of land and for recovery of possession and control of land would be a “suit for land”. Control of land includes protection of possession.
9. If the above law is applied to the facts of this case, the suit in respect of a land situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be entertained by this Court. The judgment of the Division Bench in Bank of Madura case , initially relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be made applicable, in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Private Limited case (supra).
10. For the foregoing reasons, leave granted to the plaintiff is revoked and the A. No. 3210 of 2005 is allowed. Consequently, interim order is vacated and the O.A. No. 710 & 711 of 2005 are dismissed. No costs.