D SETHURAMALINGESWARA RAO Vs. PERLA PICHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff died after the judgment in the suit and before filing this appeal. Of his legal representatives, his son has preferred this appeal and his wife and daughters are respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in this appeal. THE first respondent in this appeal is the defendant. THE deceased plaintiff was the indorsee of two promissory notes (1) exhibit A-1, dated September 11, 1971, for Rs. 11, 250 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, executed by the defendant in favour of one G. Subramaniam, and (2) exhibit A-2 of the same date of Rs. 4, 200 with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, executed by the defendant in favour of one P. Lakshmiah. According to the plaintiff, both the promissory notes were indorsed by the above said promisees, G. Subramaniam and Lakshmiah, respectively, in favour of the plaintiff at Madras on September 6, 1974. THE relevant endorsements are respectively marked as exhibits A-3 and A-4. THE suit is for recovery of the sums due under the said promissory notes. But the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that (1) the plaintiff was not a holder in due course ; (2) the promissory notes were not supported by consideration ; (3) the abovesaid alleged indorsements were not true ; (4) in any case, the indorsements were not made at Madras ; and (5) the trial court at Madras has no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE trial court also held that the defendant was entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Act (4 of 1938).

(2.) IF the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, then it should not have gone into the merits of the case. Therefore, let me first of all consider whether the finding of the court below that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit is correct. The defence in this regard is that the indorsements are not true and even assuming they are true, they were not made at Madras. The further defence is, payment under the promissory notes has to be made only at Gudalur in Andhra Pradesh and so the trial court at Madras has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Now, so far as this jurisdiction issue is concerned, as per section 20, Civil Procedure Code, even if any part of the cause of action for the suit arose at Madras, that is, within the jurisdiction of the trial court (City Civil Court, Madras) then the suit can be tried by the said court. So, if it is proved that the payment of the sums due under the promissory notes has to be made at Madras, the suit could be filed in the trial court. Even if it is not so, if the abovesaid indorsements were proved to have been made at Madras, then also, the suit could be entertained at by the trial court, Madras (vide Mangamma v. Sathya Raju 1916 (31) MLJ 816).Now, regarding the place of payment, exhibit A-2 no doubt states that the payment should be made at Gudalur.

(3.) THE decision in V. C. Jayaram Mudaliar v. C. M. Sivaram, 1963 AIR(Mad) 294, cited by learned counsel for the appellant, holding that the term 'specified place" in section 69 must have been intended to refer not to a vast area in general terms like a large city as Madras, will have no application to the present case since Gudalur cannot be termed as such a large city. So far as exhibit A-1 promissory note is concerned, section 70 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would operate, which runs as follows :