BHARATHI AMMA Vs. S A ABDUL AZEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Subordinate Judge of Palghat by the order challenged in this revision found jurisdiction in that court to entertain the suit. This finding was entered on issue 5 in the suit which was framed on the contention of defendants 1 and 2 that no part of the cause of action arose within that territorial jurisdiction of that court. THE suit was on a promissory note executed by the defendants at Kasargode in the Cannanore district where the defendants are said to be permanently residing. THE plaintiff obtained an endorsement of the promissory note from the third defendant, and is suing as the holder of the promissory note. THE endorsement is said to have been made in favour of the plaintiff at Kavilpad amsom which is within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judg's Court of Palghat. THE question that was raised was whether the endorsement or assignment of a promissory note would give jurisdiction to the court within whose jurisdiction such endorsement or assignment was made. That was decided in favour of the plaintiff and in the revision the order passed by the learned judge is challenged.

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer. The first of these is that when there is an endorsement of a negotiable instrument cause of action for suit on the negotiable instrument does not arise at the place of endorsement. The other question that is argued before me is that even if the cause of action would so arise it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that the promissory note has been endorsed or assigned but that it was for consideration and in the present case no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to show that the endorsement is supported by consideration.

(3.) AS a result of the review of the decisions I would sum up the position as follows. A suit may be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Such cause of action arises in the case of a suit on a promissory note or any other negotiable instrument, also at the place where the promissory note or such other instrument is endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. This is because cause of action includes every fact which it would be necessary to prove, if traversed, in order to enable the plaintiff to sustain his action. A plaintiff suing as an endorsee of a promissory note or any other negotiable instrument cannot succeed in, a suit without proving the fact of endorsement. An averment and proof, in the event of its being traversed, of the fact of endorsement is necessary to support the case of a plaintiff in a suit on such promissory note or other negotiable instrument. There is no justification to give a limited construction to the words 'cause of action' in S. 20 (c) of the Code of Civil procedure. The fact that such a construction will enable the holder of a promissory note by taking endorsement at any place to choose the forum where the suit can be instituted does not in any way affect the question of construction of S. 20 (c) of the Code. That such a result would follow is not a matter which should have any bearing on the construction of the section. If so, a suit instituted on a promissory note or other negotiable instrument, by assignment or endorsement of such negotiable instrument, could be instituted at the place where the said instrument has been endorsed in favour of the plaintiff. The cause of action partly arises in that jurisdiction also. Hence, in the present case the promissory note, having been endorsed within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Palghat, that court has got jurisdiction and therefore the order of the court below does not call for any interference.