S M KADIRSA RAWTHER Vs. K SHANMUGHA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, a merchant of the Palghat District, sued in a Palghat court for the recovery of Rs. 1930.95 which he alleged was due for the price of two consignments of tamarind sold by him on 16-1-1954 and 23-1-1954 to the defendant, a merchant of the Tanjore District. The Trial Court, finding that it had no territorial jurisdiction, ordered the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court, and his appeal, from that order having failed, the plaintiff has come up in revision.

(2.) To give jurisdiction to the Palghat Court, the plaint alleged that the contract of sale took place within the jurisdiction of that court and that the moneys due by the defendant were payable there. If that were so, doubtless the Palghat court would have jurisdiction. But the concurrent findings of the courts below are otherwise. Both courts rejected the plaintiffs case that the order for the tamarind had been placed with him at his place of business in the Palghat District, in fact, that the agreement to sell took place there. They found that the practice of the plaintiff was to despatch goods to places where he expected to find buyers and then to proceed to the place and effect sales. With regard to neither of the two consignments in question was there any order placed by the defendant. The plaintiff booked the first consignment of his own accord and in his own name to Nagapatam and then proceeded in person to the defendants place of business in Tiruvarur on 19-1-1954 and, handing over the railway receipt and other papers to the defendant for the purpose of clearance, effected delivery of the goods on sale or return taking an advance of Rs. 500/-. On examination, the tamarind was found to be of inferior quality and by a letter dated 22-1-1954 the defendant informed the plaintiff that he was not accepting the goods and that the plaintiff should take them back after repaying the advance and the freight On 23-1-1954 the plaintiff despatched the second consignment, again without any order, and sent to the defendant the railway receipt along with an invoice. The defendant returned the invoice and the railway receipt with a covering letter on 27-1-1954 stating that he did not want the goods and repeating that the first consignment had not been accepted by him and that the goods were being kept as the plaintiffs goods. To this letter the plaintiffs son sent a reply dated 29-1-1954 saying that the goods may be taken delivery of and kept as the plaintiffs goods to avoid demurrage and that the plaintiff would be going to Tiruvarur to settle matters in person. Therefore the defendant took delivery of the second consignment and stored it in his godown as the plaintiffs goods. The plaintiff neither took back the goods nor repaid the advance, and so the defendant (allegedly in pursuance of oral instructions from the plaintiff) sold a portion of the first consignment for Rs. 350/- and adjusted the sum towards the amount due to him.

(3.) Under S.20 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code a suit can be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. So far as suits arising out of contract are concerned Explanation III to the corresponding section, S.17, of the Code of 1882 said that the cause of action arises at any of the following places, namely:-