OSA/126/2023 of E.M.PR.M.VISWANATHAN Vs MINOR KIRTI APSARA on 14 October 2026

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge granting leave to file the partition suit before this Court, the present appeals have been filed.

2. The appellant is the father of the minor child. The suit has been filed claiming partition indicating that certain properties are situated within jurisdiction of this Court and other properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, leave was sought to file the partition suit before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.06.2023 allowed the applications. Challenging the same, the present appeals have been filed.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that most of the properties are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and thus, the suit is not maintainable.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

5. In light of the above, now the point arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the leave granted by the Court is proper?

6. The issue raised in this appeal is no longer res integra. It is well settled that even properties are situated outside and some of the properties are situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, partition suit can be filed before this Court and leave can be granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, even otherwise, Clause 13 also gives extraordinary original jurisdiction to try any suit before this Court. In this regard, it is relevant to note that this Court in A.Giridhar and another vs. A.Suresh and others reported in 1988 (2) LW 308 has held as follows:- “ It thus appears to us that while there can be no controversy that as regards suits for land or immovable property where the whole of land or immovable property is situated within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court can take cognizance of such suits, it is also well established that even though a part of the land or immovable property is situated within such limits and part outside the limits, if leave has been first obtained, a suit for such land or immovable property can be entertained by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The construction placed before the Division Bench of this Court in the Bank of Madurai's case 97 L.W. 485= AIR 1985 Mad 1, is clearly in consonance with the construction placed on Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in the decisions of the two other Chartered High Courts, which have been followed now for more than fifty years. We respectfully agree with the view taken in the Bank of Madurai Ltd. Vs. Balaramadass and Brothers and Others, It does not therefore appear to us necessary that the scope of Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent needs to be reconsidered a fresh. We are inclined to observe that if the decision in the Bank of Madurai Ltd. Vs. Balaramadass and Brothers and Others, had been placed before the learned Judge, probably the occasion for making a reference to the Division Bench would not have arisen. Having regard to the scope of Cl. 12 as construed by the Division Bench in Bank of Madurai Ltd. v. Balaramdas and Bros. 56 Cal. 94, the plaintiffs are clearly entitled to leave to file the present suit. We may also make it clear that the plaintiffs are also entitled to leave notwithstanding the fact that some of the defendants reside outside the jurisdiction of this Court as the suit expressly falls within the first part of Cl. 12 as analysed by the Division Bench. Accordingly, this petition for leave is allowed.”

7. Similarly, in S.A.Fasluddin and another vs. SMA.Siyaddin and others reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 273 has held as follows:- “ 4. Suit Schedule-I property is situated in Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20. Plaint Schedule-II to VII are situated in Kadayanallur village and Idaikaal village, Tirunelveli District. It is well settled that under Clause 12 of Letters Patent, the High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit for partition where part of the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of High Court and the remaining properties are outside the jurisdiction of the High Court with the leave of the Court. In the present case, plaint Schedule-I property situated in Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20, the suit for partition, being the suit for land is well maintainable in the Original Side of Madras High Court.

15. The decision reported in 1988-2-LW 308 [A.Giridhar and another v. A.Suresh and others] was a suit for partition of immovable properties comprising of houses in Madras city and agricultural lands in Chengalpattu District. Since the house property was situated in Madras city, the Division Bench has held that "while there can be no controversy that as regards suit for land or immovable property where the whole of land or immovable property is situated within the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court, that the High Court can take cognizance of such suits, it is also well established that even though a part of the land or immovable property is situated within such limits and part outside the limits, if leave has been first obtained, a suit for such land or immovable property can be entertained by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction."

8. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these original side appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. dhk OSA No. 126 of 2023 AND OSA NO. 127 OF 2023,CMP NO. 15930 OF 2023,CMP NO. 15931 OF 2023,CMP NO. 15945 OF 2023,CMP NO. 15944 OF 2023,CMP NO. 19446 OF 2023 14-10-2026