Tudball and Muhammad Rafiq, JJ.
1. This is a defendant's appeal. The facts found by the court below are that the defendant fraudulently obtained a decree in suit No. 1445 of 1913, in the court of the second munsif of Sirajganj, district Pabna, in Lower Bengal; that he had the decree transferred for execution to the district of Agra in these Provinces, and that he there put it into execution and caused the plaintiff to be arrested. The plaintiff on these facts asked for the following reliefs-first, that it might be declared that the decree No. 1445 of 1913 passed by the court of the second munsif of Sirajganj, district Pabna, is fraudulent and null and void and has been given without jurisdiction and power and that it is ineffectual as against the plaintiff; secondly, that a perpetual injunction may be issued prohibiting and restraining the defendant from taking out execution of the said decree as against the person of the plaintiff and his property situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that the security which the plaintiff was required to furnish at the time of his arrest in execution of the said decree, should be cancelled; thirdly, that the sum of Rs. 200 as damages on account of loss of reputation and physical and mental pain, together with future interest may be awarded against the defendant.
2. The court below has decreed the plaintiff's claim and has awarded the sum of Rs. 100 as damages against the present appellant. The plea taken before us is that the courts below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Reliance has been placed on two decisions of this Court, one in Umrao Singh v. Hardeo (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 418 and the other in Dau Dayal v. Munna Lal (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 564. Both these cases are easily distinguishable from the present case. In neither of these cases did the defendant go further than to obtain a fraudulent decree in Calcutta. In the case of Dau Dayal v. Munna Lal (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 564, to which judgement one of us was a party, the facts were clearly held to be distinguishable from those of the case of Banlce Behari Lal v. Pokhe Ram (1902) I.L.R. 25 All. 48. In this latter case it was pointed out that not only had the decree been obtained fraudulently, but that further steps had been taken and property had been attached in execution of the decree in Cawnpore. This was also the case in Jawahir v. Weki Ram (1914) I.L.R. 37 All. 189. In both these two latter cases it was held that the court in these Provinces had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and in the present case it is quite clear that a material portion of the plaintiff's cause of action accrued to him in these Provinces. It is here that the decree was executed and he was arrested. Quoting from the decision in Dau Dayal v. Munna Lal (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 564: 'A plaintiffs cause of action consists of every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgement of the court.' One of the material facts the plaintiff in the present case would have had to prove, if it had been denied, was the execution of the decree and his arrest thereafter within the jurisdiction of the court. We have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the facts and the circumstances of the present case clearly go to show that part of the plaintiff's cause of action arose in these Provinces and that the courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They had jurisdiction to declare that the decree was fraudulent and null and void as against the plaintiff. They had jurisdiction to grant a perpetual injunction which he demanded and to decree the damages which they found he had suffered. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal. We therefore dismiss it with costs.