What question did the Court answer about Clause 12?

Whether this Court had jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent when the relief sought was to enforce a personal obligation of the defendants.

Was this treated as a 'suit for land'?

No. The Court treated it as a suit to enforce a personal obligation—transfer of property—so it was not a suit for land.

Why did jurisdiction exist despite the land being outside?

Because the core relief was to compel the defendants to perform their personal duty to transfer title; Clause 12 permitted such a suit.

What relief did the plaintiffs seek?

A declaration that the lands were their property and directions compelling the defendants to execute documents to transfer the lands.

What is the key takeaway from this case?

If the suit enforces a personal obligation, jurisdiction is not blocked merely because the land lies outside the Court’s local limits.

khandesh spinning weaving v mool jaith co

Khandesh Spinning & Weaving v Mool Jaith & Co.

Bombay High Court 1948 1948 (50) BOM LR 49 Jurisdiction 6–8 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India

Primary: Clause 12 Letters Patent, Suit for Land, Personal Obligation

Secondary: Managing Agents, Declaration & Conveyance, Bombay High Court

Published: 22 Oct 2025

Slug: khandesh-spinning-weaving-v-mool-jaith-co

Quick Summary

This case is about court power under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The company said the lands at Jalgaon were really theirs. They asked the Court to declare their title and make the defendants sign transfer papers. The question: Is this a “suit for land” outside the Court’s reach, or a suit to enforce a personal duty? The Court held it was about enforcing a personal obligation. So jurisdiction existed. The appeal succeeded.

Issues

Does Clause 12 give this Court jurisdiction over the suit?
Is the case a “suit for land” (barred), or a suit to enforce a personal obligation (permitted)?

Rules

If the suit is mainly to enforce a personal promise (e.g., to transfer property), the Court can hear it under Clause 12.
“Suit for land” is when the decree itself directly decides title or possession of land outside jurisdiction.
Form of decree is less important than its effect—does it enforce a personal duty or directly operate on land?

Facts (Timeline)

The plaintiffs (a joint-stock company) sued their long-time managing agents (defendants). The agency ended on 21 Nov 1940.

Lands at Jalgaon stood in defendants’ names. Plaintiffs said the lands were bought as their agents, with plaintiffs’ funds.

Relief sought: declaration that the lands belong to the plaintiffs; directions to execute deeds and do all acts to transfer title to the plaintiffs.

Trial Judge held the Court had no jurisdiction regarding Jalgaon lands and treated connected issues as not arising.

On appeal, the question was whether Clause 12 allowed jurisdiction despite the land being outside the local limits.

Timeline: agency ends, claim on Jalgaon lands, decree sought to transfer

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiffs)

Defendants held land as agents; duty to convey to principals.
Suit enforces a personal obligation to transfer; not a suit for land.
Clause 12 gives jurisdiction where defendants carry on business or where leave is proper.

Respondent (Defendants)

Said it was a barred suit for land outside jurisdiction.
Declaration plus transfer would affect title to land outside local limits.
So this Court could not grant relief.

Judgment (Held)

The appellate Court allowed the appeal. It held the suit was not a “suit for land.” The decree’s true effect was to enforce the defendants’ personal duty to pass title to the plaintiffs. Because the cause was the duty to convey, Clause 12 jurisdiction applied. Issue No. 1 was answered in the affirmative.

Gavel symbolising appellate reversal and jurisdiction affirmed

Ratio Decidendi

Where the essence is to compel performance of a personal obligation (execute transfer), the suit is within Clause 12.
Labels do not control; the substance and effect of relief decide whether it is a “suit for land.”

Why It Matters

The case guides suits involving property outside local limits. If the heart of the case is a duty to convey, the High Court can still act. It prevents technical barriers from blocking honest claims against defaulting agents or trustees.

Key Takeaways

Ask: does the decree enforce a duty or operate on land directly?
Personal-obligation suits may lie under Clause 12, even if land is outside.
Agency funds used to buy land → duty to transfer to principal.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: DUTY — Deed compelled, Undertaking by agent, Title passes by act, Yes to Clause 12.

Spot the personal promise (execute transfer).
Check the effect of the decree (enforce duty, not seize land).
If yes, Clause 12 jurisdiction stands.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Does Clause 12 allow the Court to hear a suit seeking declaration and compelled transfer of lands outside local limits?

Rule: If the decree enforces a personal obligation, it is not a “suit for land.” Clause 12 jurisdiction is available.

Application: Defendants bought with plaintiffs’ money as agents; equity demands transfer. Relief compels execution of deeds—personal duty.

Conclusion: Not a suit for land; jurisdiction affirmed; appeal allowed.

Glossary

Clause 12 (Letters Patent): Provision giving the High Court power over certain suits in its original side.
Suit for Land: A case where the decree directly settles title/possession of land.
Personal Obligation: A duty on a person (e.g., to sign and transfer property) that the Court can enforce.