VISALAKSHI ACHI Vs. RM SEENIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was the sole appellant. Pending second appeal she died and her legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 and 3. She filed suit O.S. Mo. 274/83 before the District Munsif's Court, Devakottai, for recovery of Rs. 7102.51 due from the respondents on the following averments : The first respondent's father one Ramanathan Chettiar and his brother were doing banking business in Penang with headquarters at Karaikudi. The first appellant had deposited various amounts with the first respondent's father commencing from 17.10.1959 and on the date of the filing of the suit, it had augmented to 3977.41 Malaysian Bollars. The said Ramanathan Chettiar had forwarded a deposit letter dated 18.10.1959 with an agreement to pay higher interest than what was payable at Penang. Ramanathan Chettiar died in or about August, 1982 and his legal representatives, the present respondents, were liable to answer the suit claim, in that they had succeeded to the estate of Ramanathan Chettiar.

(2.) The first respondent filed a written statement alleging that he had no knowledge about the deposit having been made by the appellant with Ramanathan Chettiar at Karaikudi as there was no branch of the Banking business firm at Karaikudi, that till the death of Ramanathan Chettiar, both Ramanathan Chettiar and Lakshmanan Chettiar were running the Banking business, that it was not a joint family business, that snce Lakshmanan Chettiar had not been made a party to the proceedings, the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties. It was further alleged that the Civil Court at Devakottai had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in that the contract was entered into at Penang and there was no cause of action in India at Devakottai. The third and the fourth respondents filed a written statement alleging that they were not partners of the business of the firm run at Penang, that they did not possess any assets of the firm run by Ramanathan Chettiar and Lakshmanan Chettiar and that they were not liable to answer the claim of the appellant as heirs of deceased Ramanathan Chettiar.

(3.) The trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, held that there was no proof of deposit having been made with the said Ramanathan Chettiar, that the cause of action had partly arisen at Devakottai and therefore, the Civil Court at Devakottai had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, in that the sister of the first respondent one Amirthavalli Achi had not been joined as a party in the suit and so holding the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 31.7,1984. On appeal by the appellant/plaintiff in A.S. No. 31 of 85 to the Sub-Court, Devakottai, the lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court with regard to all the issues except on the issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. In that view, the lower Appellate Court though found in favour of the appellant on the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal.