Suit for specific performance under SARFAESI treated as suit for land; exclusive Mumbai jurisdiction clause upheld.

A suit for specific performance seeking issuance of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI sale process was treated as a suit for land because the relief necessarily carried delivery of possession of immovable property, even though possession was not expressly pleaded. The Court also gave effect to an exclusive jurisdiction clause confining disputes to Mumbai courts, since the clause was clear and the chosen forum was otherwise competent. On that basis, the plaint was held liable to be returned for presentation before the competent forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for specific performance seeking issuance of a sale certificate was a suit for land. (ii) Whether the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Mumbai and ousted the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for specific performance seeking issuance of a sale certificate was a suit for land.

Analysis: A suit is treated as a suit for land where the relief sought concerns title to, or delivery of possession of, immovable property. In a suit for specific performance, the Court looks only to the plaint and the reliefs claimed. Although the plaint did not expressly ask for possession, the prayer for issuance of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI framework necessarily involved delivery of possession, because the prescribed sale certificate contemplated handing over possession of the secured immovable property. The relief could not be granted without that consequence, and the principle applicable to a simple specific performance suit without possession did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: The suit was a suit for land, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the agreement conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at Mumbai and ousted the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court.

Analysis: The agreement contained clear jurisdiction clauses stating that payment was to be made in Mumbai and that disputes would be subject only to Mumbai courts/tribunals. Such a clause, when expressed in unambiguous terms, reflects the parties' intention to confine disputes to one chosen forum where that forum otherwise has jurisdiction. In the present case, the parties had restricted jurisdiction to Mumbai, and there was no basis to disregard that bargain.

Conclusion: The courts at Mumbai had exclusive jurisdiction, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The plaint was liable to be returned for presentation before the competent forum, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit for specific performance that seeks issuance of a sale certificate under the SARFAESI sale procedure, where possession of immovable property is an implicit and necessary consequence of the relief, is a suit for land; and an exclusive jurisdiction clause confining disputes to a chosen forum will be given effect where that forum is otherwise competent.

---