JOSE PAUL Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was re-opened and heard today. Defendants in O.S. No. 11 of 1987 of the Sub Court Cherthala are the appellants. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of pronote executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. the promissory note is Ext. A1. The plaintiff is residing within the jurisdiction of Cherthala Court.

(2.) The defendants contended that they had series of transaction with the father-in-law of the plaintiff, who was a money lender and they did not have any transaction with the plaintiff. But the defendants admitted the execution of Ext. A1 pronote. According to them, it was executed benami for the father-in-law of the plaintiff, who was examined as DW3 in the case. the defendants further set up the case that the suit was not maintainable at Cherthala, as it was executed at Thodupuzha. It was further contended that the plaintiff has to prove the consideration proceeded from the plaintiff.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings in this case, relevant issues were raised. One of the issues in the case was whether the court has got jurisdiction. Of course the case of the plaintiff is that the defendants came to Cherthala and executed the promissory note. The lower Court said that even otherwise the principle of the debtor seeking the creditor is applicable and hence, Cherthala Court has got jurisdiction.