NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. GOPALA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant who claimed that the lower court at Quilon had no jurisdiction to try the suit and lost is the petitioner before me.

(2.) The first defendant was the stake holder in a chitty; and the second and third defendants were sureties. The second defendant, the petitioner, gave also immovable properties as security. The chitty was not properly conducted; and the plaintiff, the first respondent who was a subscriber in the chitty, brought the suit. The petitioner's claim was that, since the properties given as security by him were situate within the jurisdiction of the court at Mavelikara, the suit cannot be filed at Quilon it should have been instituted at Mavelikara.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge has followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Pulickel Estates (1947) Ltd. v. Joseph ( 1955 (2) MLJ 228 ) by Balakrishna Aiyar, J., who, in a similar case, held that the Madras Court had jurisdiction and not the Ottappalam Court. The correctness of that decision is being challenged in this revision petition. In the alternative, it is claimed that that decision does not apply to the present case.