Legal Reference Library

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1566  of  1991 PETITIONER: ADCON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: DAULAT AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/2001 BENCH: Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Phukan The question then arises as to what is meant by suit for land. This expression has been interpreted by different High Courts as well as the Federal Court. In His Highness Shrimant Maharaj Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore Vs. Dada Bhai Cursetji Ashburner [1890 (14) I.L.R. Bombay 353] a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that a suit for specific performance would not fall within the meaning of that expression. There the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement to mortgage certain immovable property. The agreement was made in Bombay between the parties on January 8, 1883. The Divisional Court held, it had jurisdiction and granted decree. On appeal a Division Bench referred to an earlier judgment of that court in Yenkoba Balset Kasar Vs. Rambhaji (9 Bombay...

territorial jurisdiction The question, therefore, is as to whether present case is covered by clause  (a) or (d) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the one hand or proviso thereof is applicable and therefore, provisions of Section 20 of the Code can also be invoked. relief sought by the plaintiff was for specific performance of agreement respecting immovable property coupled with relief to deliver possession to him, suit was covered by clause (d) of Section 16 of the Code and proviso had no application.  25. In the present case the plaintiff has not prayed for decree of mandatory injunction limiting to the execution of the lease deed. Had it been so, one would have queried as to whether, in the absence of any relief for possession, principle of K.G. Ringshia (supra) should be applied or that of Vipul Infrastructure (supra). Here, the plaintiff specifically asked for mandatory injunction against the defendants "to take all consequential steps for allowin...