UCO BANK Vs. RATNI DEVI JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court:-This is an application of the defendants seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is a suit for land situated outside the jurisdiction of this court and thus, depriving this court of its authority to entertain or try the suit; alternatively the issue as to the maintainability of the suit in this court or lack of territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain or try the suit be heard and determined as a preliminary issue before the hearing of any other issues.

(2.) In the plaint, the plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs:--

(3.) In support of the aforementioned reliefs, the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint, inter alia, that the plaintiff was inducted in premises No. 62/7, Ballygunge Circular Road, Calcutta, under a registered indenture of lease. While the plaintiff was enjoying the lease right in the said premises, the defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 approached the plaintiff with the proposal that if the plaintiff temporarily shifted from the said premises, the said defendants would construct a building there at and make over to the plaintiff on ownership basis three flats of 1000 sq. ft. each with four garages free of costs and also arrange for temporary accommodation for the plaintiff during the period of construction. The plaintiff agreed to the said proposal for exchange of tenancy right in respect of the said premises for right of ownership of three flats or the total carpet area of 3000 sq. ft. and four covered garages or car parking space in the new building to be constructed at the said premises. Accordingly on 8th December, 1984 an agreement was entered by and between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1, 2, 3, & 4, which agreement was subsequently modified by an agreement dated 10th February, 1987. As it appears, the agreement dated 8th December, 1984 was subject to the defendants purchasing the ownership right in the said premises from the then owners thereof, and on 28th August, 1985 the defendants by obtaining nine conveyances in their favour acquired the ownership right in the said premises, which was recorded in the agreement for modification dated 10th February, 1987. The plaintiff has contended that it has performed its part of the obligation under the agreement by vacating the said premises and shifting to the temporary accommodation provided by the defendants at premises No. 59/2A, Pratapaditya Road, Calcutta 26 and similarly the defendants furnished a bank guarantee for Rs. 3,26,000/- in terms of the said contract, but the defendants failed and neglected to deliver vacant possession of the three flats in the newly constructed building at the said premises to the plaintiff in terms of the said agreement despite such construction was apparently completed by the defendants and also failed and neglected to renew the bank guarantee despite requests and despite the plaintiff applying for specific performance of the said agreement.