Clause 12 jurisdiction in partition suits turns on the asset type, with movables, Vikhroli land, and business presence treated separately.

Clause 12 jurisdiction in a mixed partition suit was held to depend on the nature of each asset. Partition of movables could be entertained where the movables formed part of the cause of action and leave had been obtained, even if ancillary reliefs such as challenge to a release deed were also sought. For immovable property, the suit was a suit for land and could proceed only where the land was within jurisdiction; the later extension of territorial limits to Vikhroli allowed inclusion of that property, but not other immovables outside jurisdiction. Mere beneficial interest in a family business did not amount to carrying on business in Bombay.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent existed in respect of a suit substantially for partition of movable property and ancillary reliefs; (ii) whether the Court could entertain partition of the immovable property at Vikhroli after the local limits of jurisdiction were extended; (iii) whether the defendants could be said to be carrying on business in Bombay within the meaning of Clause 12.

Issue (i): Whether jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent existed in respect of a suit substantially for partition of movable property and ancillary reliefs.

Analysis: A suit for partition of movable property falls within the category of suits where jurisdiction depends on whether a part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction. The existence of movable property is a material fact in a partition suit, and if such property is situated within jurisdiction, that fact forms part of the cause of action. Where leave under Clause 12 has been obtained, the Court may entertain the suit for partition of movables situated within jurisdiction and may also deal with movables outside jurisdiction. The ancillary challenge to the release deed did not alter the essential character of the suit, which was substantially one for partition.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction existed in respect of partition of movable property. This part of the claim was maintainable and the dismissal of the suit in its entirety was erroneous.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could entertain partition of the immovable property at Vikhroli after the local limits of jurisdiction were extended.

Analysis: A suit for partition of immovable property is a suit for land, and at the institution of the suit no part of the land was within jurisdiction. However, the later statutory extension of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction to Vikhroli operated retrospectively for pending proceedings of this kind. Since jurisdiction is determined by the law in force when the Court is called upon to dispose of the matter, the Vikhroli land, which had come within the jurisdictional limits by then, could be included to that extent. The leave originally obtained could not extend to land that was never within the contemplation of the leave on the original pleadings, so the enlargement of jurisdiction was confined to the Vikhroli property.

Conclusion: The suit could proceed only in respect of the Vikhroli immovable property, and not in respect of the other immovable properties outside jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether the defendants could be said to be carrying on business in Bombay within the meaning of Clause 12.

Analysis: The phrase "carry on business" requires more than a mere interest in the business or a share in its profits. It connotes participation in the business as a contracting party with personal liability for debts arising from it, whether directly or through a strict agent. In a joint Hindu family, the karta or those coparceners who actually enter into the business may be carrying it on, but other coparceners, including minors and females, do not do so merely because they are interested in the family assets or in the profits of the business. A partner in a family-business arrangement does not make every member of the family a carrier on of the business.

Conclusion: The defendants other than the karta could not be treated as carrying on business in Bombay, and jurisdiction could not be founded on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part. The wholesale dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the Court held jurisdiction only to the extent of the movable properties and the Vikhroli immovable property, while the remaining immovable properties outside jurisdiction were excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a mixed partition suit, jurisdiction under Clause 12 depends on the distinct jurisdictional basis applicable to each class of property: movables are governed by the cause of action and situs, while immovables require the land itself to be within jurisdiction or brought within it by a valid extension of territorial limits; mere beneficial interest in a family business does not amount to carrying on business for jurisdictional purposes.

---