P.C.MALLICK, J. - (1.) THIS is a suit for a declaration of rights of the plaintiff under a contract with the defendant Corporation, injunction to prevent a breach thereof by the defendants, for damages andfor other reliefs. The plaintiffs case is that by an Indenture dated 25 -10 -1951 the defendant Corporation granted a licence to the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff acquired the sole and absolute right to draw and remove sludge from the Pruss Sedimentation Tank at Bantalla including the lagoons and to utilise and convert the same into manure and sell it as a commercial product. For such purpose the plaintiff acquired the right under the agreement to occupy 20 bighas of land. The agreement was for 10 years commencing from 9 -1 -1949 with an option for further period. Ever since the plaintiff proceeded to work out the said licence, market the sludge and had acquired a well -established reputation and created a goodwill of considerable value. The defendant Corporation during the subsistence of this agreement wrongfully allowed the State of West Bengal to encroach on the plaintiff's rights and to remove sludge from the area leased out to the plaintiff, to construct railway lines around the lagoons all over the land leased out preventing the plaintiff access to the lagoons and sedimentation tanks and thereby preventing the plaintiff to draw and remove sludge from the lagoons. These are the wrongful acts alleged to have been committed by the defendant State in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant Corporation. Full knowledge of the agreement subsisting between the plaintiff and the Corporation has been imputed to the State. The defendants have failed and neglected though called upon to desist from these wrongful acts. Hence the suit has been instituted for declaration of rights of the plaintiff under the agreement, for injunction and for damages against both the defendants.
(2.) THE defendant Corporation in its written statement denied that the plaintiff acquired sole and absolute right to draw and remove sludge from the sedimentation tanks and/or the lagoons, that there was no agreement to extend the period of licence. It is pleaded that though 20 Bighas of land is mentioned in the agreement, the land has not been described or defined and that there is no schedule to the said Indenture. All allegations of conspiracy and wrongful conduct have been denied. It is pleaded that no exclusive license having been given to the plaintiff to draw and remove sludge from the sedimentation tanks and/or the lagoons, the defendant Corporation acted within its rights in allowing the defendant State to remove sludge from the lagoons. The defendant Corporation was within its right to allow the defendant State to construct railway lines along the lagoons and the plaintiff having no right over the lagoon this construction of railway lines did not in any way affect the plaintiff's right under the agreement. It is denied that the plaintiff had any possessory title to the lagoons and that removal of sludge from the lagoons docs amount to trespass on the part of the defendant on which an action for damages would lie. In short the defence is that the plaintiff acquired no exclusive right under the agreement, no right to receive sludge from the lagoons, in fact, no right to the lagoons and that there has been no infringement of the agreement on the part of the defendant Corporation. It is pleaded that the plaintiff and not the defendant was guilty of breach of contract. It is submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action to institute the suit and that the suit is mala fide, vexatious and speculative and should be dismissed with costs. In the written statement of the defendant State, it is pleaded that the Indenture in suit pur -ports to create rights in immovable property and is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of registration. Knowledge of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant Corporation has been denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has any right in respect to the lagoons or that the defendant State has affected the plaintiff's rights unlawfully. All allegations of conspiracy and wrongful acts have been denied. It is denied that the plaintiff has suffered any damages. It is pleaded that in any event the damage claimed is excessive. It is contended that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit, it being a suit for land. It is submitted that the suit should be dismissed with costs.
(3.) AFTER the opening of the case, a point was taken by Mr. Dev the learned counsel appearing for the State that as against the State this court has, in any event, no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. If it is a suit for land, this court cannot entertain it, the whole of the land being outside the jurisdiction of this court. If, on the other hand, it is not a suit for land, then also the jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked, because the State cannot be said to reside or carry on business at its seat of Government, which only is situate within the jurisdiction of this court. Mr. Subimal Roy learned counsel for the plaintiff concedes that if it is a suit for land, this court cannot -entertain this suit, the land being wholly outside the jurisdiction of this court. He further concedes that on the present state of authorities, the State cannot be said to carry on business at Calcutta the seat of its Government. These authorities being binding on this court, it is no use arguing the point in this court. But he reserved the right to challenge the authorities should the matter go up. As matters stand therefore it must be conceded that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as against the defendant State. Mr. Roy, therefore, abandoned the plaintiff's claim as against the second defendant and intimated that he would proceed only against the defendant Corporation. As against the State, therefore, the suit was dismissed and the suit thereafter proceeded only against the defendant Corporation. Mr. Das learned counsel appearing for the Corporation made it clear when the suit was dismissed against the defendant State that he would contend that the suit is not merely liable to be dismissed only against the defendant State but also against the Corporation as well. Mr. Das's contention is that in respect to suits not for land, if there are more defendants than one, each and every defendant must reside or carry on business or work for gain within the jurisdiction of this court so as to give jurisdiction to this court under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The point therefore remains still to be decided whether tbe suit is liable to be dismissed as against the defendant Corporation on the ground of jurisdiction. After the dismissal of the suit against the defendant State the following issues were settled: 1. (a) Is this a suit for land? 2. (a) Is the contract in suit liable to be registered? (b) If so, what is the effect of non -registration on this suit? 3. Did the Corporation of Calcutta grant exclusive right in favour of the plaintiff to draw sludge as alleged? 4. If so, has the Corporation committed breach of the terras of the said grant? 5. Has the plaintiff suffered any damage? If so, how much? 6. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? ;