S MUHAMMAD EUSOOF MARICAR Vs. K SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A simple point of jurisdiction is raised in this petition by defendant 1, a permanent resident of Karaikal, who was sued in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli by the plaintiff in the following circumstances. The plaintiff alleged that he and defendant 1 entered into an agreement at Karaikal on 7th August 1947 by which the latter agreed to sell a building he owned in Manapparai in the Tiruchirapalli district to the plaintiff for Rs. 13,250, that he paid defendant 1 an advance of Rs. 2000 and that it was agreed that defendant 1 should come to Manapparai and complete the conveyance and get it registered in the local Registrar's office. The suit was filed for specific performance of contract and also for recovery of possession. The plea of jurisdiction taken on behalf of defendant 1 was that as a nonresident foreigner resident in the French territory of Karaikal he could not be sued in the Tiruchirapalli Court. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Tiruchirapalli Court had jurisdiction both under Section 16 and Section 20, Civil P. C.

(2.) THE learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to cite any authority for the position that in the circumstances the Tiruchirapalli Court had no jurisdiction. I should have been surprised if he could adduce any authority to support it. His main argument is that this suit is essentially one in personam and that no nonresident foreigner can be sued in an Indian Court. This may be so but not if the non-resident foreigner is possessed of immovable property in the jurisdiction of the Indian Court and this property is the subject-matter of the suit. A subtle distinction is sought to be drawn between a suit for land and a suit for a specific performance of a contract relating to land which it is urged is an action in personam. Reliance is placed on Valliappa Chettiar v. Saha Govinda Dass, 52 Mad 809: (A. I. R. (16) 1929 Mad. 721 F. B.) a Full Bench decision of five Judges. That was a decision as regards the scope of Clause 12, Letters Patent and whether the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction could try a suit for specific performance of contract to sell made in Madras relating to property in the Chittor district. THE finding was that such a suit was not a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12, Letters Patent. That decision affords us no assistance in determining this issue of jurisdiction. Under the proviso to Section 16, Civil P. C.