Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court held that a partition suit involving immovable properties situated partly outside its territorial jurisdiction is a “Suit for Land” under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Since the plaintiff had not obtained prior leave under Clause XII before filing the suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the outside properties. The Court further held that the suit could not continue only for properties within Mumbai jurisdiction as that would amount to an impermissible partial partition. Consequently, the entire plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as being barred by law.
Headnote
Issue of Consideration
The issue for consideration before the Court was whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the suit, being a suit for partition of immovable properties situated partly outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, required prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, which had not been obtained.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Interim Application and held that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court held that the suit, seeking partition and handing over possession of immovable properties situated partly outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, constituted a “Suit for Land” under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Since the plaintiff had failed to obtain prior leave under Clause XII before instituting the suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the properties situated outside its jurisdiction. The Court further held that the suit could not proceed only in respect of properties within jurisdiction, as that would amount to an impermissible suit for partial partition. Accordingly, the plaint was rejected as being barred by law.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) -- Clause XII of Letters Patent -- Suit for land -- Partition of immovable properties -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Rejection of plaint -- Leave requirement for suits involving properties outside original jurisdiction
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 138
Interim Application (L) No. 26145 of 2025 in Suit No. 422 of 2012
Adv. Rohan Cama a/w Adv. Rupesh R. Lanjekar for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 in IA(L)/937/2025, Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Joel J. Carlos, Adv. Manish Pradeep Gitay i/b Adv. Joel J. Carlos for Defendant Nos. 1,3 and 4, Adv. Manish Pradeep Gitay for Defendant Nos. 2(a) to 2(d), Adv. Anish Karande a/w Adv. Gobinda C. Mohanty i/b M/s. Mohanty & Associates for Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, Mr. Vishwajit P. Sawant, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Raju Yamgar & Adv. Yunus Vakharia i/b Adv. Raju Yamgar for Defendant No.7
Bupendra Damjibhai Tank & Ors. (Applicants/Original Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4)
Renu Balwant Maru (Plaintiff)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for partition of ancestral movable and immovable properties
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff Renu Balwant Maru sought declaration of her 1/7th share in the ancestral properties, partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds, handing over of her share, and declarations that agreements executed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in respect of the Dindoshi property were illegal and not binding upon her.
Filing Reason
The suit was filed to assert the plaintiff’s alleged rights in the ancestral movable and immovable properties left behind by her deceased father, Damodar (Damjibhai) Raghavji Tank, claimed to be Karta of the HUF.
Previous Decisions
An Interim Application was filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent had been obtained before institution of the suit involving properties situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Issues
Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for being barred by law on account of failure to obtain prior leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent in a suit for partition involving immovable properties situated partly outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
The Applicants argued that the suit was a suit for partition of immovable properties and therefore constituted a “Suit for Land” under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, requiring prior leave, which had not been obtained. Reliance was placed on judgments holding that a partition suit is a suit for land and that leave under Clause XII must be obtained before institution of the suit. Defendant No. 7 supported the Applicants and contended that the suit involved possession of immovable properties and therefore squarely fell within the category of a suit for land.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that a suit seeking partition of immovable properties along with handing over possession of the plaintiff’s share constitutes a “Suit for Land” under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Since certain immovable properties were situated outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and no prior leave under Clause XII had been obtained before institution of the suit, the Court lacked jurisdiction over those properties. The Court further held that the suit could not proceed only regarding properties within jurisdiction because that would amount to an impermissible suit for partial partition. Consequently, the plaint was held to be barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
“This Interim Application has been filed by original Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 seeking rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (the ‘CPC’) on the ground that it is barred by law as no leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of this Court has been obtained by the Plaintiff.”
“Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that since the Plaintiff had not obtained leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of this Court, the present Suit is barred by law and therefore should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.”
“Mr. Sawant submitted that the present Suit is a Suit for possession of land and immovable properties and therefore is a Suit for land and immovable properties under Clause XII of the Letters Patent.”
Procedural History
Suit No. 422 of 2012 was filed by Plaintiff Renu Balwant Maru seeking partition of ancestral properties. Interim Application (L) No. 26145 of 2025 was thereafter filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The matter was heard and reserved on October 08, 2025, and judgment was pronounced on February 23, 2026 allowing the Interim Application and rejecting the plaint.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VII Rule 11
- Letters Patent: Clause XII
