AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
The Court : Two applications are taken up for consideration as they are in the same suit.
The plaintiffs by old G.A. No. 2247 of 2019, new G.A. No. 1 of 2019 in C.S. No. 171 of 2019 seek interim relief with regard to an immovable property over which, the defendants claim right. According to the plaintiffs, four several deeds of gift relating to an immovable property are null and void and should be delivered up and cancelled. By old G.A. No. 2451 of 2019, new G.A. No. 2 of 2019 in C.S. No. 171 of 2019, the defendants seek revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865.
It would be appropriate to consider the applications of the defendants for revocation of leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 first as a decision in favour of the defendants in such application will affect the application of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a decree for cancellation of four several deeds of gift in relation to an immovable property being premises no. 4, Ballygunge Terrace, Kolkata-700029 lying and situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court. According to the plaintiffs, such deeds of gift are null and void and should be delivered up and cancelled.
Learned Advocate appearing for the defendants submits that, the prayers in the plaint are such that, the same makes the suit as a suit for land. Since, the plaintiffs seek relief which requires adjudication of title to land. In respect of such contention, plaintiffs rely upon 2016 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 582 (Sumer Builders Private Limited v. Narendra Gorani).
The plaintiffs are represented.
It is the contention of the plaintiffs that, the adjudication as to whether the deeds of gift are null and void or not, does not reflect on the title to an immovable property.
Sumer Builders Private Limited (supra) considers which are suits are to be considered as suits for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865. It notices various authorities and is of the view, where, the suit is such that, the relief claimed relates to title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property and where, the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of land or immovable property, it is to be considered as a suit for land. It is also of the view that, where the nature of the suit is such that in substance it involves a controversy about land or immovable property and the Court is called upon to decide conflicting claims to such property and a decree or order is prayed for which will bring about a change in the title to it, that suit can be said to be a suit for land in respect of land or immovable property. But where incidentally in a suit, the main purpose of which or the primary object of which is quite different, some relief has to be given about land, the title to it not being in dispute in the real sense of the term, then such a suit cannot be considered to be a suit for land.
In the facts of the present case, the four several deeds of gift relate to an immovable property which is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. According to the plaintiffs that the donor could not have vested rights in the defendants through any of the four several deeds of gift. The adjudication as to the validity and legality of the four several deeds of gift will necessarily involve an adjudication as to the title to such immovable property. The adjudication will affect the title to the property concerned. The property being outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the adjudication requiring a decision as to title to the property which is outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, the suit is considered to be a suit for land.
In such circumstances, the leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is revoked. C.S. No. 171 of 2019 is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the suit, no relief can be granted to the plaintiffs in their interlocutory application. Old G.A. No. 2247 of 2019, new G.A. No. 1 of 2019 is dismissed.
Old G.A. No. 2451 of 2019, new G.A. No. 2 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.
Since, the Court did not invite any affidavit in the application of the defendants, the allegations made therein are deemed to be denied.