G. Chockalingam, J.@mdash1. Civil Suit No. 38 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendant to direct the defendant to specifically perform his part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 41.08 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "A", and also the property situate at No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No. 15 measuring an extent of 3.94 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "B", on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,27,24,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Court or in default direct an officer of this Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendant on a date to be fixed by this Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,27,24,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the terms of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and for costs of the suit.
2. Civil Suit No. 39 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendants to direct the defendants to specifically perform their part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at (i) No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 31.04 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "A", (ii) No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 5 acres and 23.5 cents or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule "B", and (iii) No. 149, Pudur Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in Survey No. 14/1C2 measuring an extent of 0.02-1/2 cents or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint schedule ''C'' and in all measuring an extent of 36.30 acres or thereabout, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,14,60,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Court or in default direct an officer of this Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendants on a date to be fixed by this Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,14,60,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as per the terms of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and for costs of the suit.
3. Civil Suit No. 41 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendant to direct the defendant to specifically perform her part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 2.94 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule given in the plaint, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 32,78,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Court or in default direct an officer of this Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendant on a date to be fixed by this Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 32,78,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as per the terms of the contract dated 26.04.2007 ad for costs of the suit.
4. Civil Suit No. 42 of 2008 is filed by the plaintiff praying for a judgment and decree as against the defendants to direct the defendants to specifically perform their part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 7.91 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule given in the plaint, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 93,42,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on a date to be fixed by this Court or in default direct an officer of this Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendants on a date to be fixed by this Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 93,42,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as per the terms of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and for costs of the suit.
5. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint in C.S. No. 38 of 2008, is as follows:--
(i) The plaintiff-Company is a Promoter in Real Estate properties in and around Chennai and its suburbs, besides Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts and in the course of its business dealings, the plaintiff was on the look out for a property in and around Kancheepuram District during April 2007 for formation of Layout plots and for their subsequent promotion and development. The defendant, who is the owner of the property situated at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 41.08 acres or thereabout and also the property situated at No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No. 15 measuring an extent of 3.94 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule properties, had come forward to sell the lands belonging to him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant had mutual discussion and negotiation with regard to the price of the properties and the modalities and thereafter, after the terms were fully and finally agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 at Chennai and subsequently, the said document was registered as Document No. 2872 of 2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District. As per the terms of the contract, per acre price of the properties was arrived and fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid to the defendant at Chennai as advance sale consideration on 26.04.2007 and a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the defendant on 21.05.2007 by the plaintiff at Chennai. Subsequently, on 14.05.2007, a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid at Chennai and thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant from time to time at Chennai towards the advance sale consideration for the purchase of the suit properties.
(ii) The defendant, after having received the said payment, made an endorsement to that effect in the original Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, which has been exhibited as a suit document filed along with the plaint, which may be read as part and parcel of the plaint for better and proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Though the defendant had handed over few documents of titles to the plaintiff, the plaintiff insisted for production of all the original documents and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property, since the title deeds for some of the properties, which the defendant owns, did not correlate, so as to enable the plaintiff to prepare the original draft Sale Deed. The plaintiff has been pursuing with the defendant to hand over the original documents in respect of the entire property and though the defendant promised and assured to furnish the same, he has been evading to produce the documents on some pretext or other and he has been forcing the plaintiff not to conclude the transaction as originally agreed upon as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. The Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant at Chennai incorporating all the terms and conditions, which shall govern the rights and obligations of both the parties to the contract. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and the plaintiff is also possessed of sufficient funds for payment of balance sale consideration and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has taken necessary steps in furtherance to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 for fulfillment of its obligations arising out of the same. However, the defendant, taking advantage of the recent spiraling rise in the price of Real Estate properties in and around Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts, has been trying to wriggle out of the contract on flimsy and untenable grounds without any justifiable cause or reason. The plaintiff has indicated its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the production of original title deeds and other relevant records, so as to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain legal opinion and conclude the transaction at the earliest, on payment of balance sale consideration as originally agreed upon between the parties as per the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and also on the distinct understanding that the defendant shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance sale consideration. The defendant, without reference to the various payments made by the plaintiff, purported to have caused a legal notice dated 22.09.2007 unilaterally and arbitrarily canceling the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. A perusal of the legal notice would indicate that the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is sought to be cancelled unilaterally and the defendant issued another notice on 04.10.2007 confirming the termination of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 which is per se, illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and the same is not binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiff has never committed breach of any of the essential terms of contract as alleged by the defendant.
(iii) The defendant had deliberately committed breach of the essential terms of the contract and is trying to put the blame on the plaintiff for no fault of it. The price that was offered by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purchase of the property on 26.04.2007 was fair, reasonable and equitable having regard to the prevailing market conditions at that point of time in the locality. The enforcement of the contract as against the defendant would not involve any hardship, prejudice or inconvenience to the defendant inasmuch as the defendant had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 with the plaintiff and was assured of fair sale price for the aforesaid property. After having fully acquainted with the price and other factors prevailing at that point of time and after having received a payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, the defendant is not entitled to resile out of the contract according to his whims and fancies. The alleged unilateral termination of the contract by the defendant is per se, illegal, invalid, unenforceable and non-est in the eyes of law and the same shall not be binding upon the plaintiff.
(iv) The defendant has received a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of signing of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within a period of 11 months from that date. The defendant has received a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 14.05.2007 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21.05.2007. It was further agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that before the sale is concluded, the properties shall be measured and the same shall be offered free from all encumbrances. The defendant further agreed to deliver all the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule mentioned properties offered to be sold to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed or Deeds. The parties to the contract have further agreed that the sale shall be in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be. It was further agreed that possession of all the properties agreed to be sold as comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring a total extent of 41.08 acres or thereabout shall be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed/Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has, in all, received a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- and has made an acknowledgment to that effect and last such endorsement was made on 21.05.2007. The defendant without any right, unilaterally tried to abandon the contract and caused a legal notice to the plaintiff through his Counsel on 22.09.2007 and cancelled the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 unilaterally and arbitrarily. The legal notice sent by the defendant would refer to the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but would not refer to the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- made on the date of Agreement for Sale, i.e., on 26.04.2007 and Rs. 2,00,000/- made subsequently by the plaintiff on 21.05.2007. The conduct of the defendant is explicit and manifest from the tenor of the legal notice sent by his counsel. From the legal notice, it is clear that the defendant is not interested in fulfilling his contractual obligations, despite the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness to conclude the contract within the stipulated period, subject to the production of all the original title deeds and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property agreed to be sold which are essential for finalization of the suit transaction. The defendant has hastily terminated the contract when the period for performance of the obligations enjoined upon the plaintiff has not expired as on the date of the issuance of the letter or legal notice. The reasons adduced by the defendant in his legal notice purporting to terminate the contract dated 26.04.2007 entered into by the plaintiff with the defendant would contain fraudulent statements and averments contrary to the true state of facts.
(v) Since the time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendant is not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the legal notice sent by the defendant, contacted the defendant in person through the Mediators and questioned his authority to cause such a legal notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendant requested the plaintiff to ignore the said legal notice and assured the plaintiff that he would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested him not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said legal notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendant that he would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendant is making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit properties ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff. The above action of the defendant prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in ''Dinamalar Tamil Daily'' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit properties and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendant had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the defendants and on 14.05.2007 and 21.05.2007, the plaintiff had made further payments of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
(vi) The suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is not seeking possession of the properties, but however, the present suit has been laid as a suit simpliciter for enforcement of the contract which would involve adjudication of the title of the defendant. The plaintiff is also not seeking for control over the properties forming the subject matter of litigation and in such circumstances, this Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant is residing at Chennai and the advance sale consideration were also paid at Chennai and admittedly, the balance of convenience is also for institution of the present suit as against the defendant in this Court. Since there is a constant thereat of wrongful and fraudulent alienation of the suit properties by the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for enforcement of the contract simpliciter in this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs stated supra.
6. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint in C.S. No. 39 of 2008, is as follows:--
(i) The plaintiff-Company is a Promoter in Real Estate properties in and around Chennai and its suburbs, besides Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts and in the course of its business dealings, the plaintiff was on the look out for a property in and around Kancheepuram District during April 2007 for formation of Layout plots and for their subsequent promotion and development. The defendants, who are the owners of the property situated at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 31.04 acres or thereabout more fully described in the plaint Schedule ''A'', (ii) No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 5 acres and 23.5 cents or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule ''B'' and (iii) No. 149, Pudur Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in Survey No. 14/1C2 measuring an extent of 0.02-1/2 cents or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint schedule ''C'' and in all measuring an extent of 36 acres and 30 cents or thereabout, had come forward to sell the lands belonging to them to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants had mutual discussion and negotiation with regard to the price of the properties and the modalities and thereafter, after the terms were fully and finally agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 at Chennai and subsequently, the said document was registered as Document No. 2873 of 2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District. As per the terms of the contract, per acre price of the properties was arrived and fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was paid to the defendants at Chennai as advance sale consideration on 26.04.2007 and a further sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- was paid to the defendants on 21.05.2007 by the plaintiff at Chennai and thus, in all, a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was paid at Chennai by the plaintiff to the defendants towards the advance sale consideration for purchase of the suit properties.
(ii) The defendants, after having received the said payment, made an endorsement to that effect in the original Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, which has been exhibited as a suit document filed along with the plaint, which may be read as part and parcel of the plaint for better and proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Though the defendants had handed over few documents of titles to the plaintiff, the plaintiff insisted for production of all the original documents and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property, since the title deeds for some of the properties, which the defendants own, did not correlate, so as to enable the plaintiff to prepare the original draft Sale Deed. The plaintiff has been pursuing with the defendants to hand over the original documents in respect of the entire property and though the defendants promised and assured to furnish the same, they have been evading to produce the documents on some pretext or other, forcing the plaintiff not to conclude the transaction as originally agreed upon as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. The Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai incorporating all the terms and conditions, which shall govern the rights and obligations of both the parties to the contract. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and the plaintiff is also possessed of sufficient funds for payment of balance sale consideration and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has taken necessary steps in furtherance to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 for fulfillment of its obligations arising out of the same. However, the defendants, taking advantage of the recent spiraling rise in the price of Real Estate properties in and around Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts, have been trying to wriggle out of the contract on flimsy and untenable grounds without any justifiable cause or reason. The plaintiff has indicated its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the production of original title deeds and other relevant records, so as to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain legal opinion and conclude the transaction at the earliest, on payment of balance sale consideration as originally agreed upon between the parties as per the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and also on the distinct understanding that the defendants shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance sale consideration. The defendants, without reference to the various payments made by the plaintiff, purported to have caused a notice dated 04.10.2007 unilaterally canceling the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. A perusal of the notice would indicate that the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants is sought to be cancelled unilaterally and arbitrarily, which is per se, illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and the same is not binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as the plaintiff has never committed breach of any of the essential terms of contract as alleged by the defendants.
(iii) The defendants had deliberately committed breach of the essential terms of the contract and are trying to put the blame on the plaintiff for no fault of it. The price that was offered by the plaintiff to the defendants for the purchase of the properties on 26.04.2007 was fair, reasonable and equitable having regard to the prevailing market conditions at that point of time in the said locality. The enforcement of the contract as against the defendants would not involve any hardship, prejudice or inconvenience to the defendants inasmuch as the defendants had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 with the plaintiff and was assured of fair sale price for the property. After having fully acquainted with the price and other factors prevailing at that point of time and after having received a payment of Rs. 13,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, the defendants are not entitled to resile out of the contract according to their whims and fancies. The alleged unilateral termination of the contract by the defendants is per se, illegal, invalid, unenforceable and non-est in the eyes of law and the same shall not be binding upon the plaintiff.
(iv) The defendants have received a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of signing of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within a period of 11 months from that date. The defendants had received a further sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- on 21.05.2007. It was further agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that before the sale is concluded, the properties shall be measured and the same shall be offered free from all encumbrances. The defendants further agreed to deliver all the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule mentioned properties offered to be sold to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed or Deeds. The parties to the contract have further agreed that the sale shall be in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be. It was further agreed that possession of all the properties agreed to be sold as comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring a total extent of 36.30 acres or thereabout shall be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed/Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have, in all, received a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- and has made an acknowledgment to that effect and last such endorsement was made on 21.05.2007. The defendants, without any right, unilaterally tried to abandon the contract and caused a notice to the plaintiff on 04.10.2007 and cancelled the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 unilaterally and arbitrarily. The notice sent by the defendants would not refer to the payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- made by the plaintiff. From the said notice, it is clear that the defendants are not interested in fulfilling their contractual obligations, despite the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness to conclude the contract within the stipulated period, subject to the production of all the original title deeds and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property agreed to be sold which are essential for finalization of the suit transaction. The defendants have hastily terminated the contract when the period for performance of the obligations enjoined upon the plaintiff has not expired as on the date of the issuance of the letter or said notice. The defendants would contend that the plaintiff has misrepresented the nature of transaction and alleged to have committed fraud according to the tenor of the notice.
(v) Since the time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the notice sent by the defendants, contacted the defendants in person through the Mediators and questioned their authority to cause such a notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said notice and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that the defendants would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit properties, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit properties ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff and his efforts in developing the properties in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in ''Dinamalar Tamil Daily'' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit properties and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendants had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- to the defendants and on 21.05.2007, the plaintiff had made further payment of Rs. 13,50,000/-. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
(vi) The suit properties are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is not seeking possession of the properties, but however, the present suit has been laid as a suit simpliciter for enforcement of the contract, which would involve adjudication of the title of the defendants. The plaintiff is also not seeking for control over the properties forming the subject matter of litigation and in such circumstances, this Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants are residing at Chennai and the advance sale consideration were also paid at Chennai and admittedly, the balance of convenience is also for institution of the present suit as against the defendants in this Court. Since there is a constant threat of wrongful and fraudulent alienation of the suit properties by the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for enforcement of the contract simpliciter in this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs stated supra.
7. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint in C.S. No. 41 of 2008, is as follows:--
(i) The defendant Mrs. S. Chandra, (Since deceased), is represented by her legal representatives viz., (i) C. Siva Subramanian (Husband)-1st defendant, (ii) C.S. Rajamanickam (1st Son)-2nd defendant, (iii) C.S. Thirugnana Sambandam (2nd Son)-3rd defendant and (iv) C.S. Meenakshi (Daughter)-4th defendant. The plaintiff-Company is a Promoter in Real Estate properties in and around Chennai and its suburbs, besides Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts and in the course of its business dealings, the plaintiff was on the look out for a property in and around Kancheepuram District during April 2007 for formation of Layout plots and for their subsequent promotion and development. The first defendant''s deceased wife, who is the mother of defendants 2 to 4 viz., Mrs. S. Chandra, was the owner of the property situated at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 2.94 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule property, had come forward to sell the lands belonging to her to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant''s wife and mother respectively had mutual discussion and negotiation with regard to the price of the property and the modalities and thereafter, after the terms were fully and finally agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant''s wife and mother respectively entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 at Chennai and subsequently, the said document was registered as Document No. 2870 of 2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District. As per the terms of the contract, per acre price of the property was arrived and fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant''s wife and mother respectively as advance sale consideration on 26.04.2007 and a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid on 21.05.2007 and in all, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant''s wife and mother respectively at Chennai towards the advance sale consideration for the purchase of the suit property.
(ii) The defendant''s wife and mother respectively, after having received the said payment, made an endorsement to that effect in the original Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, which has been exhibited as a suit document filed along with the plaint, which may be read as part and parcel of the plaint for better and proper appreciation of the facts of the case. Though the defendant''s wife and mother had handed over few documents of titles to the plaintiff, the plaintiff insisted for production of all the original documents and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property, since the title deeds for some of the properties, which the defendant''s wife and mother owns, did not correlate, so as to enable the plaintiff to prepare the original draft Sale Deed. The plaintiff has been pursuing with the defendant''s wife and mother during her life time and after her demise, with the defendants herein to hand over the original documents in respect of the entire property and though the defendants promised and assured to furnish the same, they have been evading to produce the documents on some pretext or other, forcing the plaintiff not to conclude the transaction as originally agreed upon as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. The Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant''s wife and mother at Chennai incorporating all the terms and conditions, which shall govern the rights and obligations of both the parties to the contract. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and the plaintiff is also possessed of sufficient funds for payment of balance sale consideration and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has taken necessary steps in furtherance to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 for fulfillment of its obligations arising out of the same. However, after the demise of S. Chandra, the defendants herein, taking advantage of the recent spiraling rise in the price of Real Estate properties in and around Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts, have been trying to wriggle out of the contract on flimsy and untenable grounds without any justifiable cause or reason. The plaintiff has indicated its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the production of original title deeds and other relevant records, so as to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain legal opinion and conclude the transaction at the earliest, on payment of balance sale consideration as originally agreed upon between the parties as per the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and also on the distinct understanding that the defendants'' wife and mother shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance sale consideration. The defendants herein, without reference to the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the plaintiff, are attempting to deal with the suit property in favour of third party purchaser(s) ignoring the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. The defendants herein had deliberately committed breach of the essential terms of the contract and are trying to put the blame on the plaintiff for no fault of it. The price that was offered to the defendant''s wife and mother by the plaintiff for the purchase of the property on 26.04.2007 was fair, reasonable and equitable having regard to the prevailing market conditions at that point of time in the said locality. The enforcement of the contract as against the defendants would not involve any hardship, prejudice or inconvenience to the defendants inasmuch as the defendants'' wife and mother respectively had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 with the plaintiff and was assured of fair sale price for the property. After having fully acquainted with the price and other factors prevailing at that point of time and after having received a payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- as advance sale consideration, the defendants are not entitled to resile out of the contract according to their whims and fancies. The attempt made by the defendants in alienating the suit property is per se, illegal, invalid, unenforceable and non-est in the eyes of law and the same shall not be binding upon the plaintiff.
(iii) The defendant''s wife and mother respectively viz., S. Chandra has received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of signing of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within a period of 11 months from that date. The defendant''s wife and mother had received a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 21.05.2007. It was further agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant''s wife and mother that before the sale is concluded, the property shall be measured and the same shall be offered free from all encumbrances. The defendant''s wife and mother, viz., S. Chandra further agreed to deliver all the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property offered to be sold to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed or Deeds. The parties to the contract have further agreed that the sale shall be in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be. It was further agreed that possession of all the properties agreed to be sold as comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring a total extent of 2.94 acres or thereabout shall be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed/Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant''s wife and mother has, in all, received a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and has made an acknowledgment to that effect and last such endorsement was made on 21.05.2007. The defendants herein, without any right, unilaterally tried to abandon the contract and are making attempts to dispose of the property without reference to the Agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007. From the conduct of the defendants, it is clear that they are not interested in fulfilling their contractual obligations, despite the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness to conclude the contract within the stipulated period, subject to the production of all the original title deeds and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property agreed to be sold which are essential for finalization of the suit transaction. The defendants are trying to terminate the contract when the period for performance of the obligations enjoined upon the plaintiff has not expired. The defendants would contend that the plaintiff has misrepresented the nature of transaction and alleged to have committed fraud according to their statement.
(iv) The time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on coming to know about the attempts of the defendants to alienate the suit property, contacted the defendants in person through Mediators and questioned their authority to sell the suit schedule mentioned property without reference to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, which the wife and mother had entered into with the plaintiff herein, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said information and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged by the wife and mother viz., S. Chandra and further requested him not to precipitate the matter further. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that they would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit property ignoring the various payments made by the plaintiff and its efforts in developing the property in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in ''Dinamalar Tamil Daily'' to safeguard her interest in relation to the suit property and called upon the public not to deal with the suit property, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court, inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant''s wife and mother at Chennai, where the plaintiff and Mrs. S. Chandra, the wife and mother of the defendants herein had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the defendant''s wife and mother on 21.05.2007 and the plaintiff had made further payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, i.e., within the jurisdiction of this Court except to the fact that the suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
(v) The suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is not seeking possession of the property, but however, the present suit has been laid as a suit simpliciter for enforcement of the contract which would involve adjudication of the title of the defendants. The plaintiff is also not seeking for control over the property forming the subject matter of litigation and in such circumstances, this Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants are residing at Chennai and the advance sale consideration were also paid at Chennai and admittedly, the balance of convenience is also for institution of the present suit as against the defendants in this Court. On 15.12.2007, when the plaintiff caused a legal notice to the defendants through Counsel to perform their part of the contract, there is a constant thereat of wrongful and fraudulent alienation of the suit property by the defendants and therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for enforcement of the contract simpliciter in this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs stated supra.
8. The case of the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint in C.S. No. 42 of 2008, is as follows:--
(i) The plaintiff-Company is a Promoter in Real Estate property in and around Chennai and its suburbs, besides Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts and in the course of its business dealings, the plaintiff was on the look out for a property in and around Kancheepuram District during April 2007 for formation of Layout plots and for their subsequent promotion and development. The defendants, who are the owners of the property situated at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 7.91 acres or thereabout, more fully described in the plaint Schedule, had come forward to sell the lands belonging to them to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants had mutual discussion and negotiation with regard to the price of the property and the modalities and thereafter, after the terms were fully and finally agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 at Chennai and subsequently, the said document was registered as Document No. 2871 of 2007 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District. As per the terms of the contract, the per acre price of the property was arrived and fixed at Rs. 12,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to the defendants at Chennai, by the plaintiff as advance sale consideration on 26.04.2007 for the purpose of the suit property.
(ii) The defendants, after having received the said payment, had handed over few documents of title to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been insisting for production of all the original documents and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property, since the title deeds for some of the properties, which the defendants own, did not correlate, so as to enable the plaintiff to prepare the original draft Sale Deed. The plaintiff has been pursuing with the defendants to hand over the original documents in respect of the entire property and though the defendants promised and assured to furnish the same, have been evading to produce the documents on some pretext or other, forcing the plaintiff not to conclude the transaction as originally agreed upon as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. The Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 had been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai, incorporating all the terms and conditions, which shall govern the rights and obligations of both the parties to the contract. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform its part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and the plaintiff is also possessed of sufficient funds for payment of balance sale consideration and as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has taken necessary steps in furtherance to the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 for fulfillment of its obligations arising out of the same. However, the defendants, taking advantage of the recent spiralling rise in the price of Real Estate properties in and around Kancheepuram and Trivellore Districts, have been trying to wriggle out of the contract on flimsy and untenable grounds without any justifiable cause or reason. The plaintiff has indicated its readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the production of original title deeds and other relevant records, so as to facilitate the plaintiff to obtain legal opinion and conclude the transaction at the earliest, on payment of balance sale consideration as originally agreed upon between the parties as per the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and also on the distinct understanding that the defendants shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance sale consideration. The defendants, without reference to the advance payment made by the plaintiff, purported to have caused a notice dated 04.10.2007 unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelling the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. A perusal of the notice would indicate that the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants is sought to be cancelled unilaterally, which is per se, illegal, invalid and non-est in the eyes of law and the same is not binding on the plaintiff, inasmuch as the plaintiff has never committed breach of any of the essential terms of contract as alleged by the defendants.
(iii) The defendants had deliberately committed breach of the essential terms of the contract and are trying to put the blame on the plaintiff for no fault of it. The price that was offered by the plaintiff to the defendants for the purchase of the property on 26.04.2007 was fair, reasonable and equitable, having regard to the prevailing market conditions at that point of time in the said locality. The enforcement of the contract as against the defendants would not involve any hardship, prejudice or inconvenience to the defendants, inasmuch as the defendants had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 with the plaintiff and was assured of fair sale price for the property. After having fully acquainted with the price and other factors prevailing at that point of time and after having received a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance sale consideration, the defendants are not entitled to resile out of the contract according to their whims and fancies. The alleged unilateral termination of the contract by the defendants is per se, illegal, invalid, unenforceable and non-est in the eyes of law and the same shall not be binding upon the plaintiff.
(iv) The defendants have received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of signing of the contract dated 26.04.2007 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration within a period of 11 months from that date. It was further agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that before the sale is concluded, the property shall be measured and the same shall be offered free from all encumbrances. The defendants further agreed to deliver all the original title deeds in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property offered to be sold to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed or Deeds. The parties to the contract have further agreed that the sale shall be in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees, either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be. It was further agreed that possession of all the properties agreed to be sold as comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring a total extent of 7.91 acres or thereabout, shall be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed/Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have, in all, received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The defendants, without any right, unilaterally tried to abandon the contract and caused a notice to the plaintiff on 04.10.2007 and cancelled the registered Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 unilaterally and arbitrarily. The notice sent by the defendants would not refer to the payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the plaintiff. The conduct of the defendants is explicit and manifest from the tenor of the notice caused by them. From the said notice, it is clear that the defendants are not interested in fulfilling their contractual obligations, despite the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness to conclude the contract within the stipulated period, subject to the production of all the original title deeds and other relevant records pertaining to the entire property agreed to be sold, which are essential for finalization of the suit transaction. The defendants have hastily terminated the contract when the period for performance of the obligations enjoined upon the plaintiff has not expired as on the date of the issuance of the letter. The defendants would contend that the plaintiff has misrepresented the nature of transaction and alleged to have committed fraud according to the tenor of the letter written by the defendants. The defendants, who have committed fraud after having received large sum of money from the plaintiff and who have not only failed to fulfill their contractual obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007, but have also been trying to indulge in unjust enrichment in dealing with the property in favour of third party purchaser(s) without assigning any valid, plausible, tenable reasons for rescinding the contract.
(v) The time for performance of the contract as agreed upon by the parties is 11 months from the date of Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007 and before the time fixed for performance of the contract, the defendants are not entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiff, on receipt of the notice sent by the defendants, contacted the defendants in person through the Mediators and questioned their authority to cause such a notice, when the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement for Sale. At that point of time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to ignore the said notice and assured the plaintiff that they would complete the sale transaction as originally envisaged and further requested her not to issue any reply or rejoinder to the said notice or proceed legally. The plaintiff earnestly believed the representation made by the defendants that the defendants would act as per business ethics and would not deal with the suit property, but would adhere to the terms of the contract as set out in the Agreement for Sale dated 26.04.2007. But, however, the market enquiries of the plaintiff would reveal that the defendants are making hasty and hectic attempts to deal with the suit property ignoring the payment made by the plaintiff and her efforts in developing the properties in furtherance to the contract. The above action of the defendants prompted the plaintiff to cause a Public Notice in ''Dinamalar Tamil Daily'' to safeguard its interest in relation to the suit property and called upon the public not to deal with the suit properties, since there was a contract entered into by the owners of the property with the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit after obtaining leave of this Court to institute the suit in this Court inasmuch as the subject matter of the suit contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants at Chennai, where the plaintiff and the defendants had preliminary and final rounds of discussions and thereafter, after reaching consensus, entered into the said contract for sale of the property within the jurisdiction of this Court on 26.04.2007 and on the same day, the plaintiff made a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the defendants. The entire cause of action for the suit arose at Chennai, within the jurisdiction of this Court, except to the fact that the suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
(vi) The suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff is not seeking possession of the property, but however, the present suit has been laid as a suit simpliciter for enforcement of the contract, which would involve adjudication of the title of the defendants. The plaintiff is also not seeking for control over the property forming the subject matter of litigation and in such circumstances, this Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants are residing at Chennai and the advance sale consideration was also paid at Chennai and admittedly, the balance of convenience is also for institution of the present suit as against the defendants in this Court. Since there is a constant thereat of wrongful and fraudulent alienation of the suit property by the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for enforcement of the contract simpliciter in this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the reliefs stated supra.
9. In the written statement filed by the defendant in C.S. No. 38 of 2008, it is stated as follows:--
(i) Actually, the agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly terminated, vide legal notice dated 22.09.2007 and followed by a registered deed of cancellation of agreement for sale dated 03.10.2007, which was also duly informed to the plaintiff by another legal notice dated 04.10.2007 and the plaint is filed only on 02.01.2008 only after three months after cancellation of agreement of sale. Under these circumstances, when the very same agreement of sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly cancelled by the defendant, which was not questioned or challenged in any forum by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot enforce this suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale, which no longer exists and duly cancelled. Hence, suit may be summarily dismissed.
(ii) Suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, since the schedule mentioned property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is incorrect to state that the defendant has come forward to sell the land belonging to him to the plaintiff. In fact, it is the plaintiff, who approached the defendant originally for the purchase of the schedule mentioned property owned by the defendant. The plaintiff suppressed several facts regarding agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007. After much discussion, the agreement for sale between the parties was entered into between them, not only in respect of the defendant''s property described in the schedule, but also for the properties owned by the defendant''s entire family members i.e., his wife and sons were also subject matter of sale. The plaintiff suppressed the important fact that as per the mutual discussion and decision of both the parties, since the plaintiff is engaged in real estate business and promoting and developing the lands, it was agreed that the lands should be promoted as lay out and then only to be sold as developed lands.
(iii) It was mutually agreed that in so far as the land cost is concerned, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is fixed as basic price and after developing the lands into pots, the development charges incurred for developing the lands as saleable are at the cost of plaintiff and the same shall be deducted from the total sale consideration to be paid for third party purchasers and the balance amount shall be divided between the defendant and the plaintiff at 50% ratio. Basic price of Rs. 12,00,000/- will be paid to the defendant being the land owner and only out of balance of sale consideration proposed to be fixed for the sale of plots after development to the third party purchaser, after deducting development expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the balance amount alone, the sharing of 50% ratio will apply. To that effect, an agreement of joint venture was also signed on 23.04.2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant and when the same was produced before the Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, the parties were informed that they have to pay heavy stamp duty as well as registration charges, treating this agreement as sale, for which 8% for stamp duty and 1% for registration is payable, which will be amounting to Rs. 99,00,000/- for the entire extent of land owned by the defendant and other family members. Under these circumstances, both the plaintiff and the defendant decided to enter into another agreement for sale mentioning Rs. 12,00,000/- as consideration per acre to avoid stamp duty and hence the present agreement for sale signed on 26.04.2007 was registered. Hence, the allegation to the contrary that as per the agreement for sale, the defendant has to sell the land only for Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is incorrect.
(iv) The allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- as advance received by the defendant as stated in agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 is incorrect. Actually, the defendant has not received any amount much less Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the recital was made by way of adjustment of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff on 08.04.2007, the amount to be utilized for the purpose of discharging the agricultural loan given by the State Bank of India, Karunkuzhi Branch, in respect of 34 acres at 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and on receipt of the aforesaid Rs. 1,00,000/-, the defendant had also discharged the agricultural loan and title deeds were also released by the Bank, which was handed over to the plaintiff. Apart from that, an extent of 30 acres of land at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District was mortgaged with M/s. Zen Global Finance Company Limited and for the purpose of discharging the aforesaid mortgage to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/-, it was agreed between the parties that the aforesaid Rs. 19,00,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff directly and to get back the documents and the said Rs. 19,00,000/- will be treated as if the same was received by the defendant. Accordingly, D.D. No. 671538, dated 25.04.2007 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Chennai-10, in favour of Zen Global Finance Limited for Rs. 19,00,000/- was taken by the plaintiff and when the same was presented to M/s. Zen Global Finance, as they demanded more money, the amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was not paid to them, which was subsequently cancelled and the amount was encashed by the plaintiff herself on 29.06.2007. But, actually this amount was distributed in all the four agreements and it was stated as if these amounts were received by cash by the concerned party, while factually it was not so. Apart from that, Rs. 1,00,000/- alleged to have been received by the defendant on 14.05.2007, is only a double entry, however, Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on 21.05.2007. The actual amount paid by the plaintiff is only Rs. 3,00,000/- and not Rs. 13,00,000/-.
(v) The allegation that the defendant had been evading to produce original documents, is denied. Actually, the agreement for sale was signed within the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, just before presenting the documents for registration. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the agreement for sale was entered into at Chennai. At any point of time, before filing of the suit, the plaintiff never gave any notice or any communication informing the defendant about the readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. After having waited for several months, and since no steps were taken by the plaintiff for developing the land, the agreement for sale was cancelled by the defendant. The defendant though issued legal notices dated 22.09.2007 and 04.10.2007, no reply was sent by the plaintiff.
(vi) The plaintiff did not choose to say which terms of the contract were breached by the defendant. The defendant''s denial of receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- as stated in the legal notice dated 22.09.2007, was never controverted by the plaintiff by sending any reply till the date of filing of the plaint. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff''s case of the contents of legal notice is a fraudulent statement, but the plaintiff did not choose to controvert by sending reply. The plaintiff had committed fraud even without making the payment, as stated in the agreement for sale. The defendant is neither aware of the publication of public notice nor he is concerned about it.
(vii) Even according to the agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, the total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre for all the properties owned by the defendants and the family members, measuring an extent of 92.17 acres, the sale consideration works out to Rs. 11,00,00,000/- and the defendants dispute mere sale of land, but agreement for sale entered into between the parties is only for joint venture and the advance amount paid by the plaintiff in all the four suits, comes only to 1.5% of the total sale consideration and the totality of the case will clearly prove that it is the plaintiff who had committed fraud and cheated the defendants and other family members. The defendant''s wife Chandra died on 28.8.2007 and the defendant had to face distress sale of his house property and company properties by the Bank. In fact, the very intention of selling entire properties by joint development is only for the purpose of discharging all the bank debts. In view of the fraudulent agreement obtained by the plaintiff and also filing of the suits, the defendant and his other family members had been put into serious hardship and untold sufferings. The relief of directing the defendant to perform his part in agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, is no longer in existence, as the said agreement for sale was duly cancelled by due process of law and the plaintiff did not question the cancellation.
(viii) The plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands. There is no proof for the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness and even after three months of cancellation of the said agreement, the plaintiff did not come forward to prove her readiness and willingness. Even if accepted for argument sake that the sale agreement is correct, according to that agreement, the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 11 crores to the defendant as price money for their landed property and when their other properties came to auction sale for some Lakhs of Rupees, the plaintiff refused to pay Rs. 50 lakhs to the Indian Bank and the properties were sold in auction. On 15.12.2007, the plaintiff caused an Advocate notice demanding the defendant as well as the defendants in C.S. Nos. 39, 41 and 42 of 2008 to execute a sale deed according to sale agreement for only 2.92 acres of land out of total 92 acres and she has not asked for a complete sale deed for all 92 acres of land offering the price consideration money. This shows that the plaintiff was not ready and willing all the time and prepared to purchase all the properties mentioned in the sale agreement, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Nowhere in her pleadings, the plaintiff has stated that she offered money and requested to transfer the property as required by Form 48 of First Schedule of CPC. Further, as per Form 47, the plaintiff must say in the plaint/pleadings that the plaintiff has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement. Nowhere, the plaintiff said that she applied to the defendant to perform the agreement. The defendant prays that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the written statement filed by the defendant in C.S. No. 39 of 2008, it is stated as follows:--
(i) Actually, the agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly terminated, vide legal notice dated 22.09.2007 and followed by a registered deed of cancellation of agreement for sale dated 03.10.2007, which was also duly informed to the plaintiff by another legal notice dated 04.10.2007 and the plaint is filed only on 02.01.2008 only after three months after cancellation of agreement of sale. Under these circumstances, when the very same agreement of sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly cancelled by the defendant, which was not questioned or challenged in any forum by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot enforce this suit for specific performance based on agreement for sale, which no longer exists and duly cancelled. Hence, suit may be summarily dismissed.
(ii) Suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, since the schedule mentioned properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is incorrect to state that the defendants have come forward to sell the land belonging to them to the plaintiff. In fact, it is the plaintiff, who approached the defendants originally for the purchase of the schedule mentioned properties owned by the defendants. The plaintiff suppressed several facts regarding agreement of sale dated 26.04.2007. After much discussion, the agreement for sale between the parties was entered into between them, not only in respect of the defendants'' property described in the schedule, but also for the properties owned by the defendants'' entire family members and they were also subject matter of the agreement for sale. The plaintiff suppressed the important fact that as per the mutual discussion and decision of both the parties, since the plaintiff is engaged in real estate business and promoting and developing the lands, it was agreed that the lands should be promoted as lay out and then only to be sold as developed lands.
(iii) It was mutually agreed that in so far as the land cost is concerned, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is fixed as basic price and after developing the lands into pots, the development charges incurred for developing the lands as saleable ones at the cost of plaintiff and the same shall be deducted from the total sale consideration to be paid for third party purchasers and the balance amount shall be divided between the defendants and the plaintiff at 50% ratio. Basic price of Rs. 12,00,000/- will be paid to the defendants being the land owners and only out of balance of sale consideration proposed to be fixed for the sale of plots after development to the third party purchaser, after deducting development expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the balance amount alone, the sharing of 50% ratio will apply. To that effect, an agreement of joint venture was also signed on 23.04.2007 between the plaintiff and the defendants and when the same was produced before the Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, the parties were informed that they have to pay heavy stamp duty as well as registration charges, treating this agreement for sale as sale deed, for which 8% for stamp duty and 1% for registration is payable, which will be amounting to Rs. 99,00,000/- for the entire extent of land owned by the defendants and other family members. Under these circumstances, both the plaintiff and the defendants decided to enter into another agreement for sale mentioning Rs. 12,00,000/- as consideration per acre to avoid stamp duty and hence the present agreement of sale signed on 26.04.2007 was registered. Hence, the allegation to the contrary that as per the agreement for sale, the defendants have to sell the land only for Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is incorrect.
(iv) The allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 21,00,000/- as advance received by the defendants as stated in agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 is incorrect. Actually, the defendants have not received any amount much less Rs. 21,00,000/-. Apart from that, an extent of 30 acres of land at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District was mortgaged with M/s. Zen Global Finance Company Limited and for the purpose of discharging the aforesaid mortgage to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/-, it was agreed between the parties that the aforesaid Rs. 19,00,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff directly and to get back the documents and the said Rs. 19,00,000/- will be treated as if the same was received by the defendants. Accordingly, D.D. No. 671538, dated 25.04.2007 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Chennai-10, in favour of Zen Global Finance Limited for Rs. 19,00,000/- was taken by the plaintiff and when the same was presented to M/s. Zen Global Finance, as they demanded more money, the amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was not paid to them, which was subsequently cancelled and the amount was encashed by the plaintiff herself on 29.06.2007. But, actually this amount was distributed in all the four agreements and it was stated as if these amounts were received by cash by the concerned party, while factually it was not so. However, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on 26.04.2007 and a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff on 21.05.2007. The actual amount paid by the plaintiff is only Rs. 14,50,000/- and not Rs. 21,00,000/-.
(v) The allegation that the defendants had been evading to produce original documents, is denied. Actually, the agreement for sale was signed within the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, just before presenting the documents for registration. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the agreement for sale was entered into at Chennai. At any point of time, before filing of the suit, the plaintiff never gave any notice or any communication informing the defendant about the readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. After having waited for several months, and since no steps were taken by the plaintiff for developing the land, the agreement for sale was cancelled by the defendant. The defendant though issued a legal notices dated 22.09.2007 and 04.10.2007, no reply was sent by the plaintiff.
(vi) The plaintiff did not choose to say which terms of the contract were breached by the defendant. The defendants deny having received Rs. 7,50,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of signing the agreement. The defendants'' denial of receipt of Rs. 21,00,000/- as stated in the legal notice dated 22.09.2007, was never controverted by the plaintiff by sending any reply till the date of filing of the plaint. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff''s case of the contents of legal notice is a fraudulent statement, but the plaintiff did not choose to controvert by sending reply. The plaintiff had committed fraud even without making the payment, as stated in the agreement of sale. The defendants are neither aware of the publication of public notice nor they are concerned about it.
(vii) The defendants'' mother Chandra died on 28.8.2007 and the defendants had to face distress sale of their house property and company properties auctioned by the Bank. The plaintiff promised to pay further sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as further advance to meet out Bank dues and also agreed to discharge entire dues payable to M/s. Zen Global Services. In fact, the very intention of selling entire properties by joint development is only for the purpose of discharging all the bank debts. In view of the fraudulent agreement obtained by the plaintiff and also filing of the suits, the defendants and their other family members had been put into serious hardship and untold sufferings. The relief of directing the defendants to perform their part in agreement of sale, dated 26.04.2007, is no longer in existence, as the said agreement for sale was duly cancelled by due process of law and the plaintiff did not question the cancellation.
(viii) Even according to the agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, the total sale consideration is Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre for all properties owned by these defendants and the family members, measuring an extent of 92.17 acres, and the sale consideration works out to the tune of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- and these defendants dispute mere sale of land but agreement for sale entered into between the parties is only for joint venture. The advance amount paid by the plaintiff in all the four suits comes only 1.5% of the total sale consideration.
(ix) The suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance based on non-existence of agreement for sale is neither maintainable in law nor sustainable on facts. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and totally suppressed several facts including the original understanding of the parties that the basic price of schedule mentioned properties is Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre and actually the plaintiff has to develop the land into saleable farm plots and after deducting the expenses for the processing of development of the lands into farm plots to be incurred by the plaintiff, the net profit roughly estimated at Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre and the same shall be divided among the plaintiff and the defendants at 50% ratio.
(x) Even though the plaintiff originally entered into agreement for sale of 92 acres owned by the defendants as well as other family members, she had chosen to send legal notice dated 15.12.2007, expressing her readiness and willingness to purchase 2.94 acres valuing at Rs. 35,00,000/-, which will clearly prove the conduct of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff''s inability to perform the terms of the agreement. Actually, the plaintiff-Company''s share capital itself is only Rs. 25,00,000/-, but however, they have valued to go for deal of Rs. 45,00,00,000/-.
(xi) The plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Forms 47 and 48 of CPC, which are mandatory. Nowhere in her pleadings, the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff has applied to the defendants to perform the agreement. The requisites of filing the suit for specific performance are not complied with. The defendants pray that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the written statement filed by the defendants in C.S. No. 41 of 2008, it is stated as follows:--
(i) Actually, the agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly terminated, vide legal notice dated 22.09.2007 and followed by a registered deed of cancellation of agreement for sale dated 03.10.2007, which was also duly informed to the plaintiff by another legal notice dated 04.10.2007 and the plaint is filed only on 02.01.2008 only after three months after cancellation of agreement for sale. Under these circumstances, when the very same agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly cancelled by the defendant, which was not questioned or challenged in any forum by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot enforce this suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale, which no longer exists and duly cancelled. Hence, suit may be summarily dismissed.
(ii) Suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, since the schedule mentioned property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is incorrect to state that the defendants have come forward to sell the land belonging to them to the plaintiff. In fact, it is the plaintiff, who approached the defendants originally for the purchase of the schedule mentioned property owned by the defendant. The plaintiff suppressed several facts regarding agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007. After much discussion, the agreement for sale between the parties was entered into between them, not only in respect of the defendant''s property described in the schedule, but also for the properties owned by the defendants'' entire family members, i.e., wife and sons, were also subject matter of the agreement for sale. The plaintiff suppressed the important fact that as per the mutual discussion and decision of both the parties, since the plaintiff is engaged in real estate business and promoting and developing the lands, it was agreed that the lands should be promoted as lay out and then only to be sold as developed lands.
(iii) It was mutually agreed that in so far as the land cost is concerned, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is fixed as basic price and after developing the lands into pots, the development charges incurred for developing the lands as saleable are at the cost of plaintiff and the same shall be deducted from the total sale consideration to be paid for third party purchasers and the balance amount shall be divided between the defendants and the plaintiff at 50% ratio. Basic price of Rs. 12,00,000/- will be paid to the defendants being the land owners and only out of balance of sale consideration proposed to be fixed for the sale of plots after development to the third party purchaser, after deducting development expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the balance amount alone, the sharing of 50% ratio will apply. To that effect, an agreement of joint venture was also signed on 23.04.2007 between the plaintiff and the defendants and when the same was produced before the Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, the parties were informed that they have to pay heavy stamp duty as well as registration charges, treating this agreement as sale, for which 8% for stamp duty and 1% for registration is payable, which will be amounting to Rs. 99,00,000/- for the entire extent of land owned by the defendants and other family members. Under these circumstances, both the plaintiff and the defendant decided to enter into another agreement for sale mentioning Rs. 12,00,000/- as consideration per acre to avoid stamp duty and hence the present agreement for sale signed on 26.04.2007 was registered. Hence, the allegation to the contrary that as per the agreement for sale, the defendants have to sell the land only for Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is incorrect.
(iv) The allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- as advance received by the defendant as stated in agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 is incorrect. Actually, the defendant has not received any amount much less Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the recital was made by way of adjustment of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff on 08.04.2007, the amount to be utilized for the purpose of discharging the agricultural loan given by the State Bank of India, Karunkuzhi Branch, in respect of 34 acres at 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, and on receipt of the aforesaid Rs. 1,00,000/-, the defendant had also discharged the agricultural loan and title deeds were also released by the Bank, which was handed over to the plaintiff. Apart from that, an extent of 30 acres of land at No. 146, Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District was mortgaged with M/s. Zen Global Finance Company Limited and for the purpose of discharging the aforesaid mortgage to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/-, it was agreed between the parties that the aforesaid Rs. 19,00,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff directly and to get back the documents and the said Rs. 19,00,000/- will be treated as if the same was received by the defendant. Accordingly, D.D. No. 671538, dated 25.04.2007 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Kilpauk Branch, Chennai-10, in favour of Zen Global Finance Limited for Rs. 19,00,000/- was taken by the plaintiff and when the same was presented to M/s. Zen Global Finance, as they demanded more money, the amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was not paid to them, which was subsequently cancelled and the amount was encashed by the plaintiff herself on 29.06.2007. But, actually this amount was distributed in all the four agreements and it was stated as if these amounts were received by cash by the concerned party, while factually it was not so. Apart from that, Rs. 1,00,000/- alleged to have been received by the defendant on 14.05.2007, is only a double entry, however, Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff on 21.05.2007. The actual amount paid by the plaintiff is only Rs. 3,00,000/- and not Rs. 13,00,000/-.
(v) The allegation that the defendant had been evading to produce original documents, is denied. Actually, the agreement for sale was signed within the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, just before presenting the documents for registration. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the agreement for sale was entered into at Chennai. At any point of time, before filing of the suit, the plaintiff never gave any notice or any communication informing the defendant about the readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. After having waited for several months, and since no steps were taken by the plaintiff for developing the land, the agreement for sale was cancelled by the defendant. The defendant though issued legal notices dated 22.09.2007 and 04.10.2007, no reply was sent by the plaintiff.
(vi) The plaintiff did not choose to say which terms of the contract were breached by the defendant. The defendants'' denial of receipt of Rs. 10,00,000/- as stated in the legal notice dated 22.09.2007, was never controverted by the plaintiff by sending any reply till the date of filing of the plaint. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff''s case of the contents of legal notice is a fraudulent statement, but the plaintiff did not choose to controvert by sending reply. The plaintiff had committed fraud even without making the payment, as stated in the agreement for sale. The defendant is neither aware of the publication of public notice nor he is concerned about it.
(vii) Even according to the agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, the total sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre for all the properties owned by the defendants and the family members, measuring an extent of 92.17 acres, the sale consideration works out to Rs. 11,00,00,000/- and the defendants dispute mere sale of land, but agreement for sale entered into between the parties is only for joint venture and the advance amount paid by the plaintiff in all the four suits, comes only to 1.5% of the total sale consideration and the totality of the case will clearly prove that it is the plaintiff who had committed fraud and cheated the defendants and other family members. The first defendant''s wife Chandra died on 28.8.2007 and the defendants had to face distress sale of house property and company properties by the Bank. In fact, the very intention of selling entire properties by joint development is only for the purpose of discharging all the bank debts. In view of the fraudulent agreement obtained by the plaintiff and also filing of the suits, the defendant and his other family members had been put into serious hardship and untold sufferings. The relief of directing the defendant to perform his part in agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, is no longer in existence, as the said agreement for sale was duly cancelled by due process of law and the plaintiff did not question the cancellation.
(viii) The plaintiff has not come to Court with clean hands. There is no proof for the plaintiff''s readiness and willingness and even after three months of cancellation of the said agreement, the plaintiff did not come forward to prove her readiness and willingness. Even if accepted for argument sake that the sale agreement is correct, according to that agreement, the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 11 crores to the defendants as price money for their landed property and when their other properties came to auction sale for some Lakhs of Rupees, the plaintiff refused to pay Rs. 50 lakhs to the Indian Bank and the properties were sold in auction. On 15.12.2007, the plaintiff caused an Advocate notice demanding the defendants as well as the defendants in the other connected suits to execute a sale deed according to sale agreement for only 2.92 acres of land out of total 92 acres and she has not asked for a complete sale deed for all 92 acres of land offering the price consideration money. This shows that the plaintiff was not ready and willing all the time and prepared to purchase all the properties mentioned in the sale agreement, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Nowhere in her pleadings, the plaintiff has stated that she offered money and requested to transfer the property as required by Form 48 of First Schedule of CPC. Further, as per Form 47, the plaintiff must say in the plaint/pleadings that the plaintiff has applied to the defendant specifically to perform the agreement. Nowhere, the plaintiff said that she applied to the defendant to perform the agreement. The defendants pray that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the written statement filed by the defendants in C.S. No. 42 of 2008, it is stated as follows:--
(i) Actually, the agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly terminated, vide legal notice dated 22.09.2007 and followed by a registered deed of cancellation of agreement of sale dated 03.10.2007, which was also duly informed to the plaintiff by another legal notice dated 04.10.2007 and the plaint is filed only on 02.01.2008 only after three months after cancellation of agreement of sale. Under these circumstances, when the very same agreement of sale dated 26.04.2007 was duly cancelled by the defendant, which was not questioned or challenged in any forum by the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot enforce this suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale, which no longer exists and duly cancelled. Hence, suit may be summarily dismissed.
(ii) Suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit, since the schedule mentioned property is situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is incorrect to state that the defendants have come forward to sell the land belonging to them to the plaintiff. In fact, it is the plaintiff, who approached the defendants originally for the purchase of the schedule mentioned property owned by the defendants. The plaintiff suppressed several facts regarding agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007. After much discussion, the agreement of sale between the parties was entered into between them, not only in respect of the defendants'' property described in the schedule, but also for the properties owned by the defendants'' entire family members and they were also subject matter of the agreement for sale. The plaintiff suppressed the important fact that as per the mutual discussion and decision of both the parties, since the plaintiff is engaged in real estate business and promoting and developing the lands, it was agreed that the lands should be promoted as lay out and then only to be sold as developed lands.
(iii) It was mutually agreed that in so far as the land cost is concerned, a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is fixed as basic price and after developing the lands into pots, the development charges incurred for developing the lands as saleable ones at the cost of plaintiff and the same shall be deducted from the total sale consideration to be paid for third party purchasers and the balance amount shall be divided between the defendants and the plaintiff at 50% ratio. Basic price of Rs. 12,00,000/- will be paid to the defendants being the land owners and only out of balance of sale consideration proposed to be fixed for the sale of plots after development to the third party purchaser, after deducting development expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the balance amount alone, the sharing of 50% ratio will apply. To that effect, an agreement of joint venture was also signed on 23.04.2007 between the plaintiff and the defendants and when the same was produced before the Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, the parties were informed that they have to pay heavy stamp duty as well as registration charges, treating this agreement for sale as sale deed, for which 8% for stamp duty and 1% for registration is payable, which will be amounting to Rs. 99,00,000/- for the entire extent of land owned by the defendants and other family members. Under these circumstances, both the plaintiff and the defendants decided to enter into another agreement for sale mentioning Rs. 12,00,000/- as consideration per acre to avoid stamp duty and hence the present agreement for sale signed on 26.04.2007 was registered. Hence, the allegation to the contrary that as per the agreement for sale, the defendants have to sell the land only for Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre is incorrect.
(iv) The allegation regarding receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- as advance received by the defendants as stated in agreement for sale dated 26.04.2007 is incorrect.
(v) The allegation that the defendants had been evading to produce original documents, is denied. Actually, the agreement for sale was signed within the premises of Sub-Registrar Office, Maduranthakam, just before presenting the documents for registration. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the agreement for sale was entered into at Chennai. At any point of time, before filing of the suit, the plaintiff never gave any notice or any communication informing the defendant about the readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. After having waited for several months, and since no steps were taken by the plaintiff for developing the land, the agreement of sale was cancelled by the defendants. The defendants though issued a legal notices dated 22.09.2007 and 04.10.2007, no reply was sent by the plaintiff.
(vi) The plaintiff did not choose to say which terms of the contract were breached by the defendants. The defendants'' denial of receipt of Rs. 1,50,000/- as stated in the legal notice dated 22.09.2007, was never controverted by the plaintiff by sending any reply till the date of filing of the plaint. Assuming without admitting that the plaintiff''s case of the contents of legal notice is a fraudulent statement, but the plaintiff did not choose to controvert by sending reply. The plaintiff had committed fraud even without making the payment, as stated in the agreement for sale. The defendants are neither aware of the publication of public notice nor they are concerned about it.
(vii) The defendants'' mother Chandra died on 28.8.2007 and the defendants had to face distress sale of their house property and company properties auctioned by the Bank. The plaintiff promised to pay further sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as further advance to meet out Bank dues and also agreed to discharge entire dues payable to M/s. Zen Global Services. In fact, the very intention of selling entire properties by joint development is only for the purpose of discharging all the bank debts. In view of the fraudulent agreement obtained by the plaintiff and also filing of the suits, the defendants and their other family members had been put into serious hardship and untold sufferings. The relief of directing the defendants to perform their part in agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, is no longer in existence, as the said agreement for sale was duly cancelled by due process of law and the plaintiff did not question the cancellation.
(viii) Even according to the agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007, the total sale consideration is Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre for all properties owned by these defendants and the family members, measuring an extent of 92.17 acres, and the sale consideration works out to the tune of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- and these defendants dispute mere sale of land but agreement for sale entered into between the parties is only for joint venture. The advance amount paid by the plaintiff in all the four suits comes only 1.5% of the total sale consideration.
(ix) The suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance based on non-existence of agreement for sale is neither maintainable in law nor sustainable on facts. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and totally suppressed several facts including the original understanding of the parties that the basic price of schedule mentioned properties is Rs. 12,00,000/- per acre and actually the plaintiff has to develop the land into saleable farm plots and after deducting the expenses for the processing of development of the lands into farm plots to be incurred by the plaintiff, the net profit roughly estimated at Rs. 50,00,000/- per acre and the same shall be divided among the plaintiff and the defendants at 50% ratio.
(x) Even though the plaintiff originally entered into agreement for sale of 92 acres owned by the defendants as well as other family members, she had chosen to send legal notice dated 15.12.2007, expressing her readiness and willingness to purchase 2.94 acres valuing at Rs. 35,00,000/-, which will clearly prove the conduct of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff''s inability to perform the terms of the agreement. Actually, the plaintiff-Company''s share capital itself is only Rs. 25,00,000/-, but however, they have valued to go for deal of Rs. 45,00,00,000/-.
(xi) The plaintiff has not complied with the provisions of Forms 47 and 48 of CPC, which are mandatory. Nowhere in her pleadings, the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff has applied to the defendants to perform the agreement. The requisites of filing the suit for specific performance are not complied with. The defendants pray that the suit is liable to be dismissed.
13. This Court, by order dated 03.08.2009 has framed the following issues in all the suits:--
"1. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform its part of the obligations as per agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007?
3. Whether the defendant has committed breach of the terms of the agreement for sale, dated 26.04.2007?
4. Whether the cancellation of the registered agreement for sale by the defendant is legal, valid and binding on the plaintiff?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance for the agreement of sale? and
6. To what relief, the parties are entitled?"
14. During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff-Company, the Director of the plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1 (K. Malathi) and Exs. P-1 to P-19 in C.S. No. 38 of 2008; Exs. P-1 to P-12 in C.S. No. 39 of 2008; Exs. P-1 to P-8 in C.S. No. 41 of 2008 and Exs. P-1 to P-5 in C.S. No. 42 of 2008, were marked. On the side of the defendants, Mr. C. Siva Subramaniam (Defendant in C.S. No. 38 of 2008 and first defendant in C.S. No. 41 of 2008) was examined as D.W. 1 and Exs. D-1 to D-8 were marked.
15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that even though the suit schedule properties in all the four suits are situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, suits are merely suit simpliciter for specific performance to enforce the contract and they cannot be termed as "suits for land". Since they are not the "suits for land", and the suits are filed to enforce the contract against the defendants, the cause of action for the suits arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the suits filed by the plaintiff, are perfectly maintainable. He further submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to try the suits. He also contended that on a reading of the entire plaint in all the suits, it is clear that they are suits simpliciter for specific performance and he prayed the suits may be decreed as prayed for. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court:
(a) , 2001 (7) SCC 698 (Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat):
"9. Thus, it is clear that under clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction will have power to receive, try and determine: (1) suits for land or other immovable property if such property is situated within the local limits of original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (2) all other cases (a) if the cause of action has arisen wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; (b) if prior leave of the Court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (c) if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within such limits.
... ...
15. From the above discussion it follows that a "suit for land" is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a "suit for land" or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a "suit for land." We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mahajan, J. in Moolji Jaitha case (Moolji Jaitha and Co. v. Khandesh Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. - , AIR 1950 FC 83 : 1949 FCR 849)
... .....
17. It may be seen that sub-section (1) is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit of specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Clause (a) contains reliefs of possession and partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 22 is that no relief under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed. Thus it follows that no court can grant the relief of possession of land or other immovable property, subject-matter of the agreement for sale in regard to which specific performance is claimed, unless the possession of the immovable property is specifically prayed for.
18. In the instant case the suit is for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the suit property wherein relief of delivery of the suit property has not been specifically claimed, as such it cannot be treated as a "suit for land".
19. We cannot also accept the contention of Mr. Chitale that the suit is for acquisition of title to the land and is a "suit for land". In its true sense, a suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract for sale of land is a suit for enforcement of terms of contract. The title to the land as such is not the subject-matter of the suit."
(b) , 1964 (5) SCR 946 : AIR 1964 SC 993 (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar):
"11. That the question of fact which arose in the two proceedings was incidental would not be in doubt. Of course, they were not in successive suits so as to make the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable in terms. That the scope of the principle of res judicata is not confined to what, is contained in Section 11 but is of more general application is also not in dispute. Again, res judicata could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits. In this connection we were referred to what this Court said in Satyadhan Ghosal v. Smt. Deorajin Debi (, 1960 (3) SCR 590) where Das Gupta, J. speaking for the Court expressed himself thus:
"The principle of res judicata based on the need of giving a finality, to judicial decisions. What is says is that once res judicata, it shall not be adjudged again. Primarily it applies as between past litigation and future litigation. When a matter--whether on a question, of fact or on a question of law--has been decided between two parties in one suit or proceeding and the decision is final, either because no appeal was taken to a higher court or because the appeal was dismissed, or no appeal lies, neither party will be allowed in a future suit or proceeding between the same parties to canvass the matter again....The principle of res judicata applies also as between the two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to re-agitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings."
Mr. Pathak--laid great stress on this passage as supporting him in the two submissions that he made: (1) that an issue of fact or law decided even in an interlocutory proceeding could operate as res judicata in a later proceeding, and next (2) that in order to attract the principle of res judicata the order or decision first rendered and which is pleaded as res judicata need not be capable of being appealed against."
... ...
14. It is needless to point out that interlocutory orders are of various kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the court, usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situation which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been disposed of the court would be justified in rejecting the same as on abuse of the process of court. There are other orders which are also interlocutory but would fall into a different category. The difference from the ones just now referred to lies in the fact that they are not directed to maintaining the status quo, or to preserve the property pending the final adjudication but are designed to ensure the just, smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of the suit. They are interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation. The case of an application under O. IX, Rule 7 would be an illustration of this type. If an application made under the provisions of that rule is dismissed and an appeal were filed against the decree in the suit in which such application were made, there can be no doubt that the propriety of the order rejecting the reopening of the proceeding and the refusal to relegate the party to an earlier stage might be canvassed in the appeal and dealt with by the appellate court. In that sense, the refusal of the court to permit the defendant to "set the clock back" does not attain finality. But what we are concerned with is slightly different and that is whether the same Court is finally bound by that order at later stages so as to preclude its being reconsidered. Even if the rule of res judicata does not apply it would not follow that on every subsequent day which the suit stands adjourned for further hearing, the petition could be repeated and fresh orders sought on the basis of identical facts. The principle that repeated applications based on the same facts and seeking the same reliefs might be disallowed by the court does not however necessarily rest on the principle of res judicata. Thus if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the application of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original application was refused. The principle underlying the distinction between the rule of res judicata and a rejection on the ground that no new facts have been adduced to justify a different order is vital. If the principle of res judicata is applicable to the decision on a particular issue of fact, even if fresh facts were placed before the Court, the bar would continue to operate and preclude a fresh investigation of the issue, whereas in the other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court would be competent, may would be bound to take those into account and make an order conformably to the facts freshly brought before the Court."
16. Learned counsel for the defendants in all the suits contended that admittedly, the suit properties are not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and they are situated in Kancheepuram District. He further submitted that in order to determine as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suits, the plaints have to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. The plaintiff has filed the suits to enforce the contractual obligation stipulated in the agreements for sale executed by the respective defendants and it includes the prayer for possession to be given at the time of execution of the registered sale deeds and the plaintiff wanted possession of the properties also, which certainly shows that the suits are for land and when once the suits are for land, admittedly, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suits. Learned counsel for the defendants further contended that even though in the plaints, it is mentioned that the suits are for simpliciter enforcement of the contract, the prayers mentioned in all the four plaints cover the obligation on the part of the defendants to execute the sale deeds with the possession of the properties. Learned counsel for the defendants therefore submitted that the suits have to be treated as suits for land and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suits and he prayed for dismissal of the suits. Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the following decisions of this Court:
(a) , 2014 (4) CTC 290 (Farooque Dadabhoy v. Dr. Usha S. Bhat):
"13(1). The Plaintiff is clearly guilty of suppression of material facts. The available documents would not support the case pleaded by the Plaintiff that he has been ready and willing at all point of time. The Plaintiff, who has approached the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to the discretionary remedy of Specific Performance. Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue Nos. 1 & 3 are answered against the plaintiff.
... ...
14(a) Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act gives discretion to the Court not to enforce Specific Performance in case the contract gives an unfair advantage to the Plaintiff over the Defendant or it is inequitable.
... ...
30. It is trite that remedy of Specific Performance is purely an equitable remedy. The Plaintiff in such a Suit must come to the Court with clean hands. Entire facts of the case have to be pleaded without any kind of reservation. There should be no attempt on the part of the Plaintiff to conceal or suppress material facts. Similarly, there should not be any kind of attempt to mislead the Court. Whether it is favourable or unfavourable, the Plaintiff must disclose the entire details of the transaction. The conduct of the Plaintiff should be trustworthy. The course of conduct adopted by the Plaintiff should be fair. Any suppression of material particulars would be treated as unfair, which would disentitle him from seeking the equitable remedy of Specific Performance.
31. Since the remedy of Specific Performance is a discretionary remedy on equitable grounds, Plaintiff has to produce materials with respect to his readiness and willingness at all point of time. The conduct of the Plaintiff also assumes significance in a case of this nature. The Court was expected to weigh the materials produced by the Plaintiff to come to a definite conclusion with regard to the readiness and willingness to perform the contractual obligation voluntarily undertaken by the Plaintiff. Any action on the part of the Plaintiff to take undue advantage of the situation would result in denial of the equitable remedy. In short, the conduct of the Plaintiff throughout should be taken note of to decide the genuineness of the claim and his bona-fides."
(b) 2013 (2) TLNJ 342 (Civil) (C. Balakrishnan v. Francis Rosaria Saraswathi Balakrishnan):
"10. The above said factors would indicate that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. He neither stated the fact of sending notice under Ex. B. 1 to the first defendant nor had he pleaded the same in the plaint. Since the grant of decree for specific performance is equitable one, the plaintiff is supposed to come to the Court with clean hands. If it is found that he has consciously suppressed material facts, then he cannot get such equitable relief.
... ...
13. In view of the above said circumstances, it is to be held that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and he has not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
... ...
21. Following the proposition laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, when the facts are put to careful scrutiny, it is seen that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. As stated already, since the relief of Specific Performance of contract is an equitable relief, which should also be equitable to other side. As the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract at any point of time in the expiry of the period stipulated in Ex. A. 2. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff had not been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. This point is answered as indicated."
(c) , 2014 (3) LW 781 (P. Samiappan and others v. R. Venkatachalapathy and others):
"18. The next question to be answered is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance. It is well settled principle that the plaintiff who comes to the court claiming the discretionary relief of specific performance has to satisfy the Court whether he has got an unblemished conduct right from the date of execution of the agreement till the end of the proceedings. To decide this issue, the factual aspects have to be gone into.
... ...
28. In view of the above findings, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs have set up a false case and approached the Court with unclean hands and, therefore, they are not entitled to a discretionary relief of specific performance.
29. Insofar as the question of readiness and willingness is concerned, in paragraph 9 of the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract. However, the same is not challenged by the defendants. Even in the additional written statement, the readiness and willingness was not challenged. However, it can be seen from Ex. A. 20 statement of accounts filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were not possessed of the sale consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/- on that date. When the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, it is for them to prove the same and the readiness and willingness should be there throughout the proceedings. It is the trite position of law that the plaintiff has to fail or succeed on the strength of his own case and not take advantage of the lacuna in the case of the defendants. In the instant case, the plaintiffs, having failed to demonstrate their readiness and willingness, cannot take advantage of the fact that the same is not challenged by the defendants. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract."
17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
18. It is admitted by both sides that the suit properties in all the suits belong to the respective defendants. It is further admitted that the suit properties are situated in Kancheepuram District and the same are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is also admitted that the respective defendants executed Exs. P-14, 7, 5 and 2 - agreements for sale, in the respective suits in favour of the plaintiff. It is also specifically admitted by both parties that the possession of the suit schedule properties, had not been handed over to the plaintiff by the defendants at the time of execution of the above said agreements for sale.
19. With regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suits, it is useful to refer Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which reads as follows:
"Clause 12: 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 one hundred rupees."
20. In the book titled, "MLJ''s Madras High Court Letters Patent, Appellate and Original Side Rules", sixth edition-2015, in the heading "Notes" after the above extracted Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, while dealing with sub-divisions of Clause 12, it is stated as follows:
"Sub-divisions of Clause 12 -- For easier understanding, Clause 12 can be rewritten as follows:
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,
(1) in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court; or
(2) in all other cases,
(a) if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or,
(b) 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
(c) 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."
21. In the above said book, in the same heading "Notes" after Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, while dealing with the subject "Suit for Land", it is stated as follows:
"Suit for Land
General--The High Court can exercise its ordinary original civil jurisdiction in cases of suits for immovable property only when the whole or any part of the property is situated within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Court. -- NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms Ltd., 2008 (7) MLJ 116, 121 paragraph 7 confirmed in NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms (P) Ltd. - 2009 (8) MLJ 357 paragraph 13 (DB).
If it is not a ''suit for land'' and if part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of The High Court, then leave could be granted under Clause 12 of Letters Patent. Similarly, if it is a ''suit for land'' and if the said laid is situated within the jurisdiction of the High Court, then the High Court can entertain the suit. If the suit is ''suit for land'' and if the property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the High Court, even if the part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court cannot entertain the suit. -- M. Banupriya v. M. Lakshmi - , 2013 (4) CTC 175 paragraphs 25, 26.
Land outside the Jurisdiction--It was held that the High Court can take cognisance of suits for land or immovable property even though a part of such land or immovable property is situated within the jurisdictional limits and a part outside if leave to sue has been obtained. Leave can be granted in a partition suit where a part of the property is outside jurisdiction. Giridha. A. v. A. Suresh, 1988 (2) LW 308, 312 (DB); T.S.S. Natarajhun v. T.S.S. Nilakanthan, 2009 (1) MLJ 117 (DB). However, these decisions may require reconsideration in view of Adcon Electronics Private Limited v. Daulut, , 2001 (7) SCC 698 paragraph 9 (SC) where the Supreme Court interpreted "leave to sue" in relation to "in all other cases" and not in relation to "suits for land".
The High Court has no jurisdiction and leave cannot be granted in a suit for land relating to immovable property outside the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction. NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms Ltd., 2008 (7) MLJ 116, 123 paragraph 15 confirmed in NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms (P) Ltd., 2009 (8) MLJ 357 paragraph 13 (DB).
Meaning of "suit of land": -- The words "suit of land" means establishing title to the land or any interest in the same, or for possession or control thereof, and the decree sought for must be intended proprio vigore to be enforceable against and binding on the land itself. The express "suit for land" covers three classes of suits: (i) suits for determination of title to land; (ii) suits for possession of land; and (iii) other suits in which the reliefs claimed if granted would directly affect title to, or possession, of the land.
The words ''suits for land or other immovable property'' also include suits, which are primarily and substantially seeking an adjudication upon title to immovable property or a determination of any right or interest therein. Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited v. Meta Films Private Limited, , 2006 (1) MLJ 357 : 2006 (1) CTR 270, 274 (DB) confirming Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited v. Meta Films Private Limited, 2005 (4) MLJ 357; Madhukanta v. Purushothaman, 2005 (1) MLJ 420, 423 paragraph 6; Adcon Electronics Private Limited v. Daulut, , 2001 (7) SCC 698 paragraphs 15, 18: AIR 2001 SC 3712.
Whether a suit is a "suit for land" or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a "suit for land". Adcon Electronics Private Limited v. Daulut, , 2001 (7) SCC 698 paragraphs 15, 18: AIR 2001 SC 3712.
The following are ''suits for land'':--
(a) A suit for partition and separate possession of lands lying outside the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction. S. Kunasekaran v. S. Theivendran, , 2012 (1) MLJ 193 paragraphs 17, 22 (DB).
(b) A suit for bare injunction to safeguard possession of land. P. Ranganathan v. Sai Jagannathan, , 1995 (2) MLJ 559 ; a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of land. Jethmull Chordia v. C. Venkatasubba Reddy, , 2013 (1) LW 728 paragraphs 2, 16 (DB).
(c) An originating summons for permission to sell immovable property, D. Muthukumaraswamy alias Rajakumar by power of attorney agent M.S. Dakshinamoorthy, In re, , 1970 (2) MLJ 328.
(d) A suit for permanent injunction against entering into and disturbing possession of land. Thamaraparani Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Meta Films Pvt. Ltd., , 2006 (1) MLJ 357 paragraphs 8, 12 : 2006 (1) CTR 270, 274 (DB) confirming Thamiraparani Investments Private Limited v. Meta Films Private Limited, , 2005 (4) MLJ 357.
(e) A suit for recovery of possession of land. Hari Krishnan v. M.G.R. Memorial Charitable Trust, , 2000 (4) CTC 479 paragraph 10 (DB) confirming , 2000 (4) CTC 481.
(f) A suit to declare invalid and illegal a mortgage of property with consequential injunction. Shameem Ahmed v. The Egmore Benefit Society Ltd. , AIR 1996 Mad. 63.
(g) A suit for permanent injunction in relation to a wind energy division consisting of immovable property. NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms Ltd., 2008 (7) MLJ 116, 123 paragraph 15 confirmed in NEPC India Ltd. v. Southern Wind Farms (P) Ltd. 2009 (8) MLJ 357 paragraph 13 (DB).
(h) A suit for declaration of charge over an anaerobic digestion plant embedded to the earth where it is erected and for permanent injunction restraining from alienating or encumbering the plant. Timothy Bowen v. Clenergen Corporation, , 2012 (1) LW 66 paragraphs 18, 21.
(i) A suit to declare as null and void sale deeds executed in favour of some of the defendants relating to immovable property outside jurisdiction. M. Banupriya v. M. Lakshmi, , 2013 (4) CTC 175 paragraphs 25, 26."
22. It is settled principle of law that whether a suit is a "suit for land" or not, has to be determined only based on the averments made in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein. In this case, it is specifically admitted by both parties that the properties in all the four suits, are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, i.e. within the limits of Kancheepuram District. On a reading of the entire plaint in all the four suits, in order to determine whether the suits are "suits for land" or not, or they are suit-simpliciter for enforcement of contract, the specific averments made in the plaints in paragraph 17 are extracted below:
"17. The plaintiff states that the suit property is located outside the jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court and the plaintiff is not seeking possession of the property, but however the present suit has been laid as a suit simplicitor for enforcement of the contract which would involve adjudication of the title of the defendant. The plaintiff is also not seeking for control over the property forming the subject matter of litigation and in such circumstances, this Hon''ble Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendant is residing at Chennai and the advance sale consideration were also paid at Chennai and admittedly, the balance of convenience is also for institution of the present suit as against the defendant herein in this Hon''ble Court. Since there is a constant threat of wrongful and fraudulent alienation of the suit property by the defendant, the plaintiff is obliged to file the present suit for enforcement of the contract simplicitor in this Hon''ble Court."
23. It is also useful to refer the prayer in all the suits, which are as follows:
Prayer in C.S. No. 38 of 2008:--
"20. The plaintiff therefore prays for a Judgment and decree as against the defendant as under:
(a) Directing the defendant herein to specifically perform his part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dt. 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 41.08 acres or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint Schedule ''A'', and also the property situate at No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District, comprised in Survey No. 15 measuring an extent of 3.94 acres or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint Schedule ''B'', on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,27,24,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court OR in default direct an Officer of this Hon''ble Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendant on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 5,27,24,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the terms of the contract dt. 26.04.2007,
(b) Grant such further or other reliefs, and
(c) Costs of the suit."
Prayer in C.S. No. 39 of 2008:--
20. The plaintiff therefore prays for a Judgment and decree as against the defendants as under:
(a) directing the defendants herein to specifically perform their part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dt. 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at (i) No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 31.04 acres or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint Schedule ''A'', given hereunder (ii) No. 148, Kinar Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 5 acres and 23.5 cents or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint Schedule ''B'' given hereunder and (iii) No. 149, Pudur Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in Survey No. 14/1C2 measuring an extent of 0.02-1/2 cents or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint schedule ''C'' and in all measuring an extent of 36.30 acres or thereabout, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,14,60,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court OR in default direct an Officer of this Hon''ble Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendants on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,14,60,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as per the terms of the contract dt. 26.04.2007,
(b) Grant such further or other reliefs, and
(c) Costs of the suit."
Prayer in C.S. No. 41 of 2008:--
"20. The plaintiff therefore prays for a Judgment and decree as against the defendant as under:
(a) directing the defendant to specifically perform his part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dt. 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 2.94 acres or thereabout, morefully described in the plaint schedule given hereunder, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 32,78,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court OR in default direct an Officer of this Hon''ble Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendant on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 32,78,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendant as per the terms of the contract dt. 26.04.2007,
(b) Grant such further or other reliefs, and
(c) Costs of the suit."
Prayer in C.S. No. 42 of 2008:--
"20. The plaintiff therefore prays for a Judgment and decree as against the defendant as under:
(a) directing the defendants to specifically perform their part of the obligations arising out of the Agreement for Sale dt. 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property situate at No. 146 Keelavalam Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprised in various Survey Numbers measuring an extent of 7.91 acres or thereabout morefully described in the plaint schedule given hereunder, on receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 93,42,000/- and execute a deed of sale or sales either in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court OR in default direct an Officer of this Hon''ble Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees either in one lot or in pieces as the case may be, on behalf of the defendants on a date to be fixed by this Hon''ble Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 93,42,000/- payable by the plaintiff to the defendants as per the terms of the contract dt. 26.04.2007,
(b) Grant such further or other reliefs and
(c) Costs of the suit."
24. It is also useful to refer the common relevant clauses in the agreements for sale in the respective suits, i.e. in C.S. No. 38 of 2008: Ex. P-14 - Agreement for Sale, dated 26.04.2007 executed in between the Director (K. Malathi) of the plaintiff-Company and the defendant C. Sivasubramanian; in C.S. No. 39 of 2008: Ex. P-7 - Agreement for Sale, dated 26.04.2007 executed in between the Director (K. Malathi) of the plaintiff-Company and the defendants--C.S. Rajamanickam, C.S. Thirugnanasambandam and C.S. Meenakshi; in C.S. No. 41 of 2008: Ex. P-5 - Agreement for Sale, dated 26.04.2007 executed in between the Director (K. Malathi) of the plaintiff-Company and the defendant S. Chandra (since deceased), and C.S. No. 42 of 2008: Ex. P-2 - Agreement for Sale, dated 26.04.2007 executed in between the Director (K. Malathi) of the plaintiff-Company and the defendants -- C.S. Rajamanickam and C.S. Thirugnanasambandam, and they are extracted hereunder:
25. In the above clauses in the agreements for sale executed between the plaintiff and the defendants in all the suits, it is specifically admitted by both parties that the possession was not handed over to the first party (plaintiff) by the second party (defendants) at the time of agreement. It is specifically agreed between the parties that the second party is liable to hand over the possession at the time of registration of the documents to the first party without any encumbrance. Thus, it is the defendants'' obligation in the agreements for sale to hand over the possession to the plaintiff only at the time of registration of the sale deeds.
26. On a conjoint reading of the above stipulation and obligation specifically stated in the above agreements for sale, with the prayer made in the suits, it is seen that the plaintiff has prayed that the defendants herein may be specifically asked to perform their part of contractual obligation arising out of the agreements for sale, dated 26.04.2007 in respect of the suit schedule mentioned properties and to execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees, either in one lot or in pieces, as the case may be, fixed by this Court, or, in default, to direct the Officer of this Court to execute the deed of sale or sales in the name of the plaintiff or its nominee or nominees, either one lot or in pieces, as the case may be, on behalf of the defendants on a date to be fixed by this Court on the plaintiff''s depositing the balance sale consideration amounts specified in the plaints. Hence, on a reading of the above prayer in the suits, with the obligation fixed on the defendants in the agreements for sale, it is clear that the defendants have to execute the sale deeds and hand over the possession at the time of registration of the sale deeds.
27. Even though in paragraph 17 of the plaints, it is specifically mentioned that the suits are laid as suits-simpliciter for enforcement of the contract which would involve adjudication of title of the defendants and the plaintiff is not seeking for control over the properties forming the subject matter of litigation, on a reading of the entire prayer made in all the plaints, it is seen that the plaintiff wanted to enforce the obligation on the part of the defendants. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has specifically mentioned in the plaints, obligation, which includes handing over of possession at the time of execution and registration of the documents (sale deeds). Hence, on a reading of the entire plaint in all the four suits, along with the agreements for sale, it is clearly proved that even though the plaintiff has stated in the plaints that the plaintiff-Company is not seeking for possession of the properties from the defendants, but in the prayer column, the plaintiff has specifically wanted to enforce the obligation stipulated in the agreements for sale, which includes the handing over of the possession to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the documents (sale deeds). In the prayer column in the plaints, the plaintiff has not specifically excluded the prayer of possession from the defendants at the time of registration of documents and the plaintiff simply stated that they wanted the entire obligation stated in the agreements for sale, which definitely includes seeking for possession of the properties from the defendants at the time of registration of the documents.
28. Therefore, on a reading of the entire plaint in all the suits, this Court is of the considered view that even though in paragraph 17 of the plaints, the plaintiff is not seeking for possession of the suit properties from the defendants, from a reading of the prayer made in the suits, it is clear that the prayer includes enforcement of obligation on the part of the defendants and in case of failure, the plaintiff wanted to perform the contract by the Officer of the Court, which includes seeking for possession at the time of registration of the sale deeds.
29. Since the suits are for specific performance of the contract, which includes seeking for handing over of the possession by the defendants, definitely, the suits will come under the category of "suits for land". In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the following decisions of this Court:
(a) , 2014 (4) CTC 735 (B. Ratansingh v. P.G. Sekar):
"39. According to me, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Moolji Jaitha & Co. v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, wherein it was held that a ''Suit for land'' would mean a Suit in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of the land and also the object of the Suit was something different, but involves the consideration of the question of title to land indirectly and the Suits for land would cover the claim for recovery of possession or control of land, which was also approved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat and another, , 2001 (4) CTC 39 (SC) : 2001 (7) SCC 698 : AIR 2001 SC 3712, that any Suit or Suits wherein determination of any right or interest in land is claimed, the same can be considered as a Suit for land, even though possession is not specifically sought for as possession is inherent in a Suit for Specific Performance.
40. As stated supra, the law as it stood at the time of delivering the Judgment reported in Moolji Jaitha & Co. v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, there were no provisions like Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the earlier Specific Relief Act and therefore, it was held that a Suit for Specific Performance simpliciter is only an action in personam and the parties are only seeking for a right to enforce the terms of the contract and only after getting the title to the property by getting the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff gets the right to sue for possession and secondly, the Suit was not barred and under Order 2, Rule 2, as there was no provision at that time similar to Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and in that context, it was held that a Suit for Specific Performance simpliciter is not a Suit for land.
41. Further, the difference between the old Specific Relief Act and the new Specific Relief Act has been succinctly brought out in the Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, , AIR 1982 SC 818, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the relief of possession is inherent in a relief for Specific Performance and even in the absence of any prayer, the court has got power to grant the relief of possession and as per Section 22, at any stage, the Court can amend the relief and grant possession and having regard to the Section 28(1)(3), the Court has got power to grant the relief of possession and unfortunately, the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, , AIR 1982 SC 818, was not brought to the Notice of the Hon''ble Judges, while deciding the case reported in Adcon Electronics Pvt Ltd. v. Daulat and another, , 2001 (4) CTC 39 (SC) : 2001 (7) SCC 698 : AIR 2001 SC 3712.
... ...
43. Further, as per the Judgment reported in Moolji Jaitha & Co, v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, when the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as per the Agreement of Sale, it amounts to an interest of the property and therefore, considering the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, even in the absence of a prayer for delivery of possession, having regard to the terms in the contract, the vendor is bound to deliver possession at the time of execution of the Sale Deed and hence, the relief of possession is inherent in a Suit for Specific Performance of such contract and having regard to the law laid down in the Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal, , AIR 1982 SC 818, I am of the view that the Suit has to be construed as a ''Suit for land'' within the meaning of Clause 12 of Letters Patent and as the properties are situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and therefore, the leave granted in Application No. 3113 of 2013 is liable to be revoked and it is hereby revoked.
.. ...
45. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. According to me, the facts of that case reported in Ummer Koya, P.T. v. Tamil Nadu Chess Association, , 2005 (3) CTC 86, are entirely different from the fact of this case and having regard to the Judgment reported in the matter of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., , 2006 (1) CTC 64 (SC): AIR 2006 SC 646, the said objection cannot be accepted. In that Judgment, the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealt with the objections in respect of Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdiction and also objections on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Suit. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held so far the Territorial and Pecuniary jurisdictions are considered, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and if not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. However, the jurisdiction as to subject matter is totally distinct and stands on a different footing and where a Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, it cannot take up the cause or matter, as any order passed by such Court having no jurisdiction is a nullity.
... ...
47. As the dispute is with respect to subject matter of the Suit and the contention of the Applicant is that this Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Suit, as the property is situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the objection can be taken, at any point of time, as any order passed by this Court, without jurisdiction is a nullity."
(b) , 2014 (5) CTC 41 (Eurotherm India Pvt. Ltd. v. Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd):
"11. The main issue to be considered in this Application is whether the Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale, seeking for a prayer directing the vendor to execute the Sale Deed without any prayer for possession can be construed as a ''Suit for Land''.
... ...
14. In the Judgment reported in P.M.A. Velliappa Chettiar & others v. Saha Govinda Doss & others, , 1929 (57) MLJ 190, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was interpreted and the properties, which were the subject matter of that Suit were situate outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court and the Suit was filed for Specific Performance of contract, directing the Defendants 1 & 2 to convey the properties to the Plaintiff and the Hon''ble Full Bench of this Court held that a Suit for Specific Performance is a Suit ''in personam'' and a Suit for land is an action ''in rem'' and Clause 12 of the Letters Patent does not bar the jurisdiction as to Suits in personam and therefore, it is not a Suit for land and the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain such Suit.
... ...
18. The law laid down by the learned Judges in the Judgment reported in Moolji Jaitha & Co. v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, has also been stated clearly in that Judgment and it is as follows:
"Per Kania, C.J. - In order to see whether a Suit is covered by the expression ''Suit for Land'' in Clause 12 one has to consider whether it is for the purpose of obtaining a direction for possession or a decision on title to land, or the object of the Suit is something different but involved the consideration of the question of title to land indirectly.
Per Fail Ali, J. (Obiter) - The expression "Suit for Land" covers the following three classes of Suits (1) Suits for the determination of title to land; (2) Suits for possession of land; and (3) other Suits in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of land.
Per Patanjali Sastri, J. - The words ''Suits for land or other immovable property'' in Clause 12 besides obviously covering claim for recovery of possession or control of land, are apt to connote also suits which primarily and substantially seek an adjudication upon title to immovable property or a determination of any right or interest therein.
... ...
Per B.K. Mukherjea, J. - The words ''Suit for land'' mean a Suit for establishing title to land or any interest in the same or for possession or control thereof; and the decree sought for must be intended proprio vigore to be enforceable against and binding on the land itself."
... ...
37. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & others, , AIR 1982 SC 818, the learned Judges also considered the scope of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, to arrive at a conclusion that in a Suit for Specific Performance, on execution of Sale Deed as per the contract, the vendor is bound to deliver possession and therefore, there is no need to ask separately the relief for possession, as the relief for possession is inherent in a Suit relating to Specific Performance of contract for sale.
... ...
42. According to me, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Moolji Jaitha & Co. v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, wherein it was held that a ''Suit for land'' would mean a Suit in which the reliefs claimed, if granted, would directly affect title to or possession of the land and also the object of the Suit was something different, but involves the consideration of the question of title to land indirectly and the Suits for land would cover the claim for recovery of possession or control of land which was also approved by the Hon''ble Supreme court in , AIR 2001 SC 3172, any Suit or Suits wherein determination of any right or interest in land is claimed, the same can be considered as a Suit for land, even though possession is not specifically sought for as possession is inherent in a Suit for Specific Performance.
... ...
45. In this case, as per the Agreement of Sale, the vendor is liable to deliver vacant possession at the time of registration of the Sale Deed and therefore, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme court in the Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & others, , AIR 1982 SC 818, when the agreement is enforced by directing the vendor to execute the Sale Deed, he is also bound to act as per the terms of the Agreement of Sale and therefore, he is bound to deliver possession of the property and when the delivery of possession is inherent in a Suit for Specific Performance and when determination of any right or interest therein is to be considered by the court, it becomes a Suit for land.
46. Further, as per the Judgment reported in Moolji Jaitha & Co. v. K.S. & W. Mills Co., , AIR 1950 FC 83, when the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession as per the Agreement of Sale, it amounts to an interest of the property and therefore, considering the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, even in the absence of a prayer for delivery of possession, having regard to the terms in the contract, the vendor is bound to deliver possession at the time of execution of the Sale Deed and hence, the relief of possession is inherent in a Suit for Specific Performance of such contract and having regard to the law laid down in the Judgment reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, , AIR 1982 SC 818, I am of the view that the Suit has to be construed as a ''Suit for land'' within the meaning of Clause 12 of Letters Patent and as the properties are situate outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and therefore, the leave granted in Application No. 5596 of 2012 is liable to be revoked and it is hereby revoked.
... ...
61. As stated supra, in this case, the MoU provides for handing over possession on the execution of the Sale Deed and as per Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the possession can be obtained at any stage by amending the prayer, though initially possession was not sought for and as per the Judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, , AIR 1982 SC 818, even in the absence of any prayer for possession and even thereafter the execution of sale, such possession can be given, in my respectful opinion, though a Suit was filed only to enforce the Agreement of Sale, when the parties agreed to deliver the possession of the property and on execution of the Sale Deed, as per the terms of the agreement, the Suit has to be construed as a Suit for land.
62. In this case, having regard to the discussions made earlier, I am of the view that though the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Suit for Specific Performance of a contract for sale, namely MoU, having regard to Clause 13 in the MoU agreeing to give possession of the land on execution of the Sale Deed, the Suit has to be construed as a Suit for land and as the property is situate outside the Original jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and therefore, the leave is liable to be revoked and it is hereby revoked.
... ...
65. Therefore, it has been held that the nature of the Suit and its purpose have to be determined by reading of the Plaint as a whole and inclusion or absence of a prayer is not decisive for the determination of the Suit and the substance or object of the Suit can be gathered from the averments made in the Plaint and on which the reliefs asked in the prayers are based and by clever drafting, a Suit cannot be brought before the Court, which has no jurisdiction. Therefore, by praying only for the relief of Specific Performance simplicitor, it cannot be contended that it is not a Suit for land, as no relief for possession was not sought for, without considering the main object of the Suit to enforce the contract for sale, which contains a stipulation that possession would be delivered on execution of the Sale Deed and as per Sections 22 & 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, possession could be obtained later in execution with or without amending the relief prayed in the Plaint. Hence, the Suit of such nature has to be construed as a Suit for land."
30. The above two decisions of this Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court is of the considered view that on a reading of the entire plaint filed in all the suits, it is clear that the plaintiff wanted to enforce the whole obligation on the part of the defendants, which includes the handing over of possession by the defendants to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the document (sale deed). Therefore, it has to be held that the suits are coming within the category of "suits for land", though they are filed as simpliciter suits for enforcement of the contract. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that since the suits filed are to be construed as "suits for land" in respect of the suit properties situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, i.e. in Kancheepuram District, this Court holds that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to entertain and try the suits. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the suits are simpliciter for specific performance to enforce the contract, cannot be accepted. The argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that, even though in paragraph 17 of the plaints, it is stated that the suits are suits-simpliciter for specific performance and on a reading of the entire prayer in the plaints, it definitely comes under the category of "suits for specific performance" along with the prayer for "possession" of the properties, and therefore, the suits are to be construed as "suits for land" and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suits, is acceptable.
31. Further, P.W. 1 Malathi has specifically stated in proof affidavit that she wanted the suits to be decreed as prayed for. Hence, it is clear that the P.W. 1 has specifically stated that she wanted to enforce the entire obligation stipulated on the part of the defendants in the agreements for sale, which includes the handing over of possession by the defendants to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of sale deeds and the plaintiff insisted that she wanted to enforce the obligation. Hence, it is clear that even the plaintiff-Company prays for decree, which includes the prayer for handing over the possession of the properties by the defendants to the plaintiff.
32. From the above discussion, this Court finds that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits. Issue No. (i) framed in all the suits, is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
33. Since this Court has decided that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits, this Court is not giving any finding regarding the dispute between the parties and hence, the other issues framed in the suits, are left open to be agitated before appropriate Court having jurisdiction.
34. In view of the above findings, as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits, all the four plaints presented in C.S. Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 42 of 2008, have to be returned for proper presentation before appropriate Court in accordance with law with proper Court fee. Accordingly, all the four plaints presented in C.S. Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 42 of 2008 are returned for proper presentation before appropriate Court in accordance with law with proper Court fee.
35. Registry is directed to return all the four plaints in C.S. Nos. 38, 39, 41 and 42 of 2008, to the plaintiff, on or before 20.01.2016. Four weeks'' time from 20.01.2016 is granted to the plaintiff for proper presentation of the four plaints before appropriate Court in accordance with law with proper Court fee, less Court fee already paid.
36. In view of the above direction for return of all the four plaints, impleading Applications in A. Nos. 655 to 658 of 2015 filed in the respective suits, are closed.
