(VELUGUBANTLA) PAPAMMA Vs. RAVULA RAMASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit is to enforce a mortgage deed dated 4 June 1924, executed by defendant 1 with reference to certain lands mentioned in Sch. A to the plaint, and his share in the mill referred to in Sch. B situated at Ramachandrapur. The machinery of the mill was subsequently removed to Cocanada where a new mill was constructed with the same materials. This new mill is mentioned in Sch. C. Before the removal, the mill lay within the jurisdiction of the Rajahmundry Sub-Court. The plaintiff now seeks a decree against the lands and defendant 1's share in the mill at Cocanada in the place of that at Rajahmundry. Defendant 2 is an assignee of the Sch. C property. Defendant 3 obtained a decree against defendant 1 in a suit for money, O.S. No. 192 of 1925, on the file of the Ramachandrapur District Munsif's Court and in execution, attached defendant l's share in the mill at Cocanada. Defendant 4 obtained a money decree against defendant 3 and in execution thereof attached the decree obtained by defendant 3 and proceeded to sell the property, whereupon the plaintiff intervened as a claimant asserting her rights to the property and objecting to the attachment. Her claim was dismissed. In the present suit the plaintiff asked the Court to set aside this summary order also along with the other reliefs claimed by her.

(2.) Defendant 3, who is a resident within the limits of the Cocanada Sub-Court, contends that, in so far as he is concerned, the Rajahmundry Sub-Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. His contention was that the cause of action with respect to the declaration asked for, is the attachment made at his instance, and the order passed by the Cocanada District Munsif's Court on the claim petition put in by the plaintiff, and that this arose only within the limits of the Cocanada Sub-Court. This contention was the subject-matter of issue 4: Whether as pleaded by defendant 3, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit against him.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the contention of defendant 3 and dismissed the plaintiff's suit as against him and defendant 4 holding that as neither of the conditions required under Clause (2), Section 20, Civil P.C., viz. (1) that permission of the Court should be obtained before joining him (defendant 3) in the suit; or (2) that he should have acquiesced before being sued at Cocanada, had been complied with, the suit was not maintainable as against him. Consequently the suit against defendants 3 and 4 was dismissed while against the other defendants it was decreed. The present appeal is directed against the decree dismissing the suit as against defendants 3 and 4. Section 17; Civil P.C., states that where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.