Suit No. 997 of 1983. Case: D. G. Kotak and Anr. Vs Rajeshkumar @ Rajas R. Doshi & Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Suit No. 997 of 1983 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. J.V. Dave and Mr. L.H. Patil, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. C. Bharucha with Ms. A.B. Kapadia i/b D.F & Diwan and Mr. C.M. Korde, Sr. Adv. and Ms. Priya Aggarwal and Mrunali Panchal i/b M/s. Halai & Co. |
| Judges | D.G. Karnik, J. |
| Issue | Goa Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 - Sections 20(1), 20(3); Constitution of India - Article 231; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 7 Rule 10A |
| Judgement Date | December 21, 2011 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
D.G. Karnik, J.
1. A short but interesting question of law that arises for my consideration in this suit is:
Whether the High Court of Bombay would have a jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale and possession of a property situate outside the limits of its original civil jurisdiction, if leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is obtained prior to the filing of the suit?
2. One Ratanchand Hirachand was an owner of certain agricultural lands situate at Aundh in Taluka Haveli in Registration District Pune. (for short "the suit land"). According to the plaintiffs, under an oral agreement for sale, terms of which are recorded in a draft agreement for sale (Exhibit-J to the plaint), Ratanchand agreed to sell the suit land to them. On refusal of the defendants to sell the plaintiffs filed the present suit for specific performance of the oral agreement for sale against defendant nos.1 to 5 after obtaining a leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Defendant nos.1 and 2 were joined as executors of the will of Ratanchand and defendant nos.3 and 4 were joined as legatees/beneficiaries under the will. Defendant no.5 who was a receiver of the suit land appointed in some other proceeding (High Court Suit No.304/54) was also joined as a party. Subsequently, the plaint was amended and defendant no.6, who has subsequently purchased the property from the defendants was added as a party.
3. Issues were initially framed. However, by an order dated 20 December 2011, the court framed an additional issue: "Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? By consent of the parties, the issue was treated as preliminary issue. Counsel for the parties stated that they do not wish to adduce any oral evidence on the issue. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. "The High Court of Judicature at Bombay" was established by the Queen's Charter (known as "Letters Patent, Bombay"). Later, by reason of a power conferred under Article 231 of the Constitution of India, the Parliament of India established a common High Court, known as "The High Court of Bombay" for the State of Maharashtra and State of Goa. (see 20(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987). Under section 20(3) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Reorganisation Act, the High Court of Bombay has the same jurisdiction powers and authority which the High Court of Judicature at Bombay had immediately before the constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial