HIRALAL PATNI Vs. SRI KALI NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a judgment-debtor's appeal arising out of an objection under Section 47, Civil P. C. The facts briefly stated, are as follows:

(2.) THERE are certain mills at Agra known as the John Mills, the owners of which belonged to a well-known John family, The appellant wanted to purchase the shares of one of the members of the John family and he wrote a letter to the respondent, Sri Kalinath, on 16-5-1944 from a place called Kishangarh in Rajasthan, and addressed the letter probably to Agra where Sri Kalinath resides. In this letter he made an offer to Sri Kalinath that if he could secure the sale of the shares of the late Major A. U. John in the immoveable properties and the mills at Agra, he would pay to sri Kalinath a lump sum of rupees one lac on the completion of the transaction. After this, Letters of Administration wore issued in respect of the property of Major A. U. John, to one Mr. Pereira of Bombay. This was on 18-1-1945. Sri Kalinath carried on negotiations for sale and fixed up the transaction with Mr. Pereira and ultimately a sale deed was executed by mr. Pereira in favour of the appellant and a nominee of his at Bombay on 10-7-1946. It was also registered at Bombay. Dispute arose between the parties as to the remuneration of rupees one lac which was agreed to be paid to Sri Kalinath, with the result that Sri Kalinath had to bring a suit for the recovery of the sum of rupees one lac on the original side of the Bombay High Court. This was Suit No. 3718 of 1947, In paragraph 10 of the plaint leave of the Court for the institution of the suit in the Bombay high Court was sought and it was alleged that the Court would have jurisdiction to "entertain the suit if leave were granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The allegation in the plaint was that the negotiations for the sale were carried on at Bombay, the sale deed was executed at Bombay and the transaction was completed at Bombay. The claim to the relief was based not merely upon the agreed amount under the contract, but also by way of quantum meruit for the work done by the plaintiff for and on account of the defendant and for his labours and exertions in connection with the said transaction. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent by its order dated 10-11-1947.

(3.) THE appellant raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. Issues were framed and one of the issues was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Another issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover any sum as and by way of quantum meruit. Later on the parties agreed to refer all the matters in dispute between them to the arbitration of Mr. Pereira by an agreement of reference dated 23-7-1951.