2001 (7) TMI 1308 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the suit.
2. Validity of the partition deed dated 2.9.1958.
3. Genuineness of the Will dated 18.2.1973.
4. Consideration of convenience in granting or revoking leave to sue.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Suit:
The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this case, filed a suit claiming a 1/11th share in the self-acquired properties of their late father and in the properties acquired by their brothers after their father's death. The properties are mostly located outside Madras, with only three properties situated within Madras. The plaintiffs sought leave to institute the suit in the Madras High Court, arguing that part of the cause of action arose in Madras due to the location of these three properties.

The court emphasized that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the original jurisdiction of the High Court extends to suits for lands or other immovable properties situated within its jurisdiction. In cases where part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction, leave of the Court is essential, and the grant or refusal of leave is discretionary. The court found that the bulk of the properties and the defendants were outside Madras, making it inconvenient to try the suit in Madras.

Validity of the Partition Deed Dated 2.9.1958:
The plaintiffs contended that the partition deed of 2.9.1958 was sham and intended to circumvent the Land Ceiling Legislation. They argued that their father did not possess any ancestral property and that the partition was not genuine. The court noted that the plaintiffs' case was that their father had complete freedom to will away his properties, as the properties were not joint family properties.

Genuineness of the Will Dated 18.2.1973:
The plaintiffs also questioned the genuineness of their father's Will dated 18.2.1973, claiming that their father was ill and would not have excluded the daughters from the disposition of the property. The court observed that the properties in Madras were acquired by the brothers long after the father's demise and were not part of the father's estate at the time of his death.

Consideration of Convenience in Granting or Revoking Leave to Sue:
The learned single Judge revoked the leave primarily on the grounds of convenience, considering the location of the properties and the residence of the defendants. The court found that the bulk of the properties, the documents, and the witnesses were outside Madras, making it more appropriate for the suit to be tried in a court within whose jurisdiction the bulk of the properties are located.

The court referred to several precedents, including the decisions in Giridhar A. v. A. Suresh and Bank of Madura Ltd. v. Balaramadass, which discussed the interpretation of Clause 12 and the relevance of convenience in granting leave. The court concluded that considerations of convenience are very germane while determining the question of grant, refusal, or revocation of leave.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the revocation of leave granted earlier. The court extended the time for presenting the plaint in the proper forum and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

The judgment highlights the importance of jurisdictional considerations and the relevance of convenience in determining the appropriate forum for a suit. The court's decision underscores the discretionary nature of granting leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the necessity of balancing convenience for all parties involved.