Skip to content


A.S. Kadar Rowther and ors. Vs. M.L. Vencatachellapathy Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.573
AppellantA.S. Kadar Rowther and ors.
RespondentM.L. Vencatachellapathy Chetty
Cases ReferredKailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh
Excerpt:
small cause suit - suit for money due on delivery, whether suit for account--agency--jurisdiction--defendants residing at time of suit within jurisdiction--mercantile dealings--interest. - - i think this contention is also bound to fail......be quite enough if the plaintiff proved what goods he sent to the defendants, of which he was entitled to receive the pi ice and whatever other amounts he was entitled to receive on account of hundis sent by him for encashment, i think this contention cannot be upheld.2. the next contention is, that the defendants were rot permanent residents of kumbaconam and that, therefore, the kumbaconam court had no jurisdiction to try this suit against them. it does not appear from the judgment of the lower court, or from any thing else before me, that this objection on the ground that the permanent residence of the defendants was beyond the jurisdiction of the kumbaconam sub-court was really raised before the lower court, i am not to be understood as being of opinion that, assuming that the.....
Judgment:

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. Two points have been argued in this revision petition. The first point relates to the jurisdiciion of the Small Cause Court to try the suit. Two contentions have been urged in respect of the plea of want of jurisdiction. The first is, that the suit must be regarded as one for an account, which a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of. It does not appear from anything placed before me that the defendants were the agents of the plaintiff or occupied any other position with reference to him which would make it their duty in law to render accounts to him. The decision in Kailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh 10 Ind. Cas. 83 does not help the defendants, because there is nothing in this case to show that the taking of any accounts was necessary. It would be quite enough if the plaintiff proved what goods he sent to the defendants, of which he was entitled to receive the pi ice and whatever other amounts he was entitled to receive on account of hundis sent by him for encashment, I think this contention cannot be upheld.

2. The next contention is, that the defendants were rot permanent residents of Kumbaconam and that, therefore, the Kumbaconam Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit against them. It does not appear from the judgment of the lower Court, or from any thing else before me, that this objection on the ground that the permanent residence of the defendants was beyond the jurisdiction of the Kumbaconam Sub-Court was really raised before the lower Court, I am not to be understood as being of opinion that, assuming that the defendants were not permanent residents within the jurisdiction of the Kumbaconam Court, that would oust the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge if, at the time of the suit, they were actually and voluntarily residing within the jurisdiction of that Court. Bat as the point does not appear to have been specifically raised, it is not necessary for me to decide it.

3. The next objection relates to interest. The Subordinate Judge has found, from the course of dealings between the parties, that the plaintiff was entitled to interest. There is also foundation for hi3 statement that mercantile dealings generally carry interest. I think this contention is also bound to fail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.


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