Skip to content


Kuthiravattam Appu Thamban Vs. R. Foulkes - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.260
AppellantKuthiravattam Appu Thamban
RespondentR. Foulkes
Cases Referred and Aris v. Orchard
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 20 - contract, suit on--offer, whether part of cause of action--forum, proper--jurisdiction, determination of. - .....because it only decides that where certain terms were agreed on in one jurisdiction and the final contract was made with variations in another jurisdiction, no part of the cause of action arose in the first jurisdiction, in other words, what has to be looked at is where the final offer and acceptance took place. in the present case i think that from mr. foulkes' own evidence the inference is that the terms on which the plaintiff was prepared to sell were settled at the interview at mr. rangachariar's chambers in madras. no contract, however, was then effected. the parties met again in madura, when the plaintiff asked mr. foulkes what he intended to do and said if he did not purchase he would have to make other arrangements.3. i think this amounts to a renewed and final offer in.....
Judgment:

WAllis, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Bakewell, J, dismissing a suit, brought with leave under Section 12 of the Letters Patent for specific performance of a contract completed at Madura for the sale of land in Malabar, for want of jurisdiction on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Madras within the jurisdiction of the Original Side of this Court. For the appellants it is argued that the offer must be held to have been in Madras where the parties had an interview at the chambera of Mr. Rangachariar, who took down certain notes of terms. Bakewell, J., held that the contract was concluded at Madura, and that no part of the cause of action arose here.

2. The cases of Borthwick v. Walton (1655) 15 C.B. 501: 3 C.L.R. 364 : 24 L.J.C.P. 83 : 1 Jur. (N.S.) 142 : 3 W.K. 203 : 139 E.R. 519 : 24 L.T. (O.S.) 271 : 100 R.R. 463 and Green v. Beach (1873) 8 Ex. 208 : 42 L.J. Ex. 151 : 21 W.R. 850 show that the offer is part of the cause of action and Aris v. Orchard (1860) 6 H.N. 160 : 30 L.J. Ex. 21 : 3 L.T. 443 : 9 W.R. 106 : 158 E.R. 66 : 123 R.R. 423 is not inconsistent, because it only decides that where certain terms were agreed on in one jurisdiction and the final contract was made with variations in another jurisdiction, no part of the cause of action arose in the first jurisdiction, in other words, what has to be looked at is where the final offer and acceptance took place. In the present case I think that from Mr. Foulkes' own evidence the inference is that the terms on which the plaintiff was prepared to sell were settled at the interview at Mr. Rangachariar's chambers in Madras. No contract, however, was then effected. The parties met again in Madura, when the plaintiff asked Mr. Foulkes what he intended to do and said if he did not purchase he would have to make other arrangements.

3. I think this amounts to a renewed and final offer in Madura, which was accepted there, and that assuming that in a ease of contract the offer is part of the cause of action, we are only concerned with the place where the final offer which was accepted was made, and that the prior offer in Madras is immaterial. On this ground I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

4. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //