Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The defendant claims that this is a suit for land since the primary object of the suit is to obtain control of mines which are situated in faraway Rajasthan. The defendant claims that it would be apparent from paragraphs 9, 12, 13 and 15 of the plaint that the plaintiff canvasses a right relating to an immovable property and notwithstanding the principal relief being for specific performance of an agreement, it is the right to the mines that is at the heart for the action.
(2.) The main relief in the suit is for specific performance of an agreement to transfer a mining lease. At paragraph 9 of the plaint the plaintiff has pleaded an implied negative covenant that the defendant would not extract marble or minerals till the lease was transferred. At paragraph 12 the plaintiff has said that the defendant is seeking to transfer the mining lease to a third party in breach of the agreement with the plaintiff. At paragraph 13 the plaintiff has detailed the manner in which it seeks specific performance of the agreement. At paragraph 15 the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant was invading or threatening to invade the plaintiffs rights under its agreement with the defendant. Since the defendant has referred to such portions of the plaint in particular, the relevant averments need to be seen: "9. From the respondent's email dated 29th May, 2009 the petitioner for the first time came to learn that the respondent is in the process of carrying on marble quarry from the mining leased area. There is an implied negative covenant in the agreement that the respondent would not extract any marble and other minerals from the mine lease area till the mining lease is transferred." "12. The plaintiff has also come to learn that the defendant is now seeking to transfer the said mining lease to a third party in breach of the said agreement. 13. The plaintiff therefore by a notice dated 4th July, 2009, sent from the plaintiffs registered office within the aforesaid jurisdiction to the defendant outside the aforesaid jurisdiction a copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'G', called upon the defendant to specifically perform the said agreement by doing the following: a) Execution of necessary documents for having the said mining lease rights transferred after obtaining necessary approvals therefore from the concerned authorities in favour of a company to be incorporated for this purpose and thereafter have the shares in the company transferred to the plaintiff or its nominees Or, Execution of necessary documents for transfer of the said mining lease rights to the plaintiff or its nominee/s after obtaining necessary approvals therefore from the concerned authorities. b) Execution of all necessary documents for getting the requisite approvals/permissions as may be necessary for getting the mining lease transferred in the manner indicated in (a) above. c) Payment of the balance consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant upon transfer of the mining lease rights in terms of the said agreement, after obtaining the necessary approvals therefore." "15. The defendant is invading and/or threatening to invade the rights of the plaintiff under the said agreement by acting and/or threatening to act in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the said agreement. The invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief. The invasion has taken place at the registered office of the plaintiff, within the jurisdiction aforesaid."
(3.) The three major reliefs claimed in the suit relate to specific performance of the agreement in the manner indicated at paragraph 13 of the plaint, alternative mode for executing the relevant documents if the defendant failed to execute them and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from acting in derogation of the agreement: "a) Decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 4th August, 2008 in the manner as indicated in paragraph 13 above; b) If the defendant fails to specifically perform the said agreement dated 4th August, 2008, the Registrar, Original Side of this Hon'ble Court be directed to specifically perform the same in the manner indicated in prayer (a) above; c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, assigns from acting in breach of or in any manner inconsistent with the terms of the said agreement dated 4th August, 2008;";