S NEELAKANDA PILLAI Vs. KAKUNJU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question is, whether the Sub-Court of British Cochin has jurisdiction to try this action, which has been brought for the recovery of rent of a house in Cochin State, against the defendant who claims to be a subject of the State of Travancore. For the purpose of this judgment I am assuming that the defednant's allegation that he is not a British Subject, is true, at the time of the suit he was not in British India, but the agreement to pay rent, on which the suit is based, was executed in British Cochin.

(2.) The first question that arises is, is a suit for rent governed by Section 16 or Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code? Section 16 provides inter alia that suits of a certain description relating to immoveable property "shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate." Then there is a proviso which says that a suit to obtain relief respecting immoveable property may be instituted "either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain." For the defendant it is contended that suits for rent are governed by this proviso and that the Sub-Court of Cochin has no jurisdiction as neither the property is situate, nor the defendant is residing, within its local limits. I cannot agree with this contention. The short question is, is a suit for rent "a suit to obtain relief respecting immoveable property?" O Kinealy, J. points out, in my opinion very rightly, in Rungo Lall Lohea V/s. Wilson (1898) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 204 that in a suit by a landlord against his tenant for rent "there is no relief claimed in respect of land nor is it sought to deal with it in any way whatever". Again in Kunja Mohan Chakravarty V/s. Manindra Chandra Roy Choudhuri (1922) 27 C.W.N. 542 it has been held that a suit for arrears of rent is governed by the provisions of Section 20 and that it may be instituted in any one of the Courts specified in that section. In the present case there can be no question that the cause of action, at least in part, arose in British Cochin where the contract was made and the agreement was executed. The case thus falls within Section 20(c), which provides inter alia that a suit may be instituted within the local limits of whose jurisdiction " the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

(3.) The next and the more important point that arises is, whether the application of Section 20 is excluded by reason, of the fact that the defendant is a non-resident foreigner. Mr. Sesha Aiyar for the defendant contends, relying upon the Privy Council decision in the Faridkot case Gurdyal Singh V/s. Raja of Faridkot (1894) L.R. 21 I.A. 171 : I.L.R. 22 Cal. 222 : 4 M.L.J. 267 (P.C.) that on general principles of International Law, a Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit against a nonresident foreigner in respect of personal claims. The proposition so put is much wider than the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case mentioned warrants. In that case A sued B, a native of Jhind State, in the Court of the State of Faridkot, claiming a certain sum alleged to have been misappropriated by B while in A's service at Faridkot. At the date of the suit, B neither resided in Faridkot nor was he a domiciled subject of the Faridkot State nor did he owe allegiance to that State. The Faridkot Court having passed a decree, A brought a fresh suit upon that decree in a British Indian Court. What the Privy Council held was, that by International Law the decree of the Court of Fridkot State was an absolute nullity and it should be so regarded by the Courts of British India. But an important reservation contained in their Lordships judgment must not be lost sight of: It (the foreign decree) must be regarded as a mere nullity by the Courts of other nations except (when authorised by special local legislation) in the Country of the forum by which it was pronounced.