MANEPALLI MANGAMMA Vs. MANEPALLI SATHIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this case is whether the assignee of a promissory note can sue in the Court having jurisdiction where his assignment was made. The learned Judge has decided in the affirmative applying Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128.

(2.) If the matter was res Integra, I should be inclined to dissent from his decision, because its consequence in India would be inconvenient in the extreme and I should be unwilling to adopt an interpretation of Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which would authorise evasions of the restrictions imposed by the section by means of an easy device. But the general definition of cause of action contained in Read v. Brown (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 128 has been accepted in numerous cases in this country, Arunachellam Chetty v. Meyyappa Chetty (1897) I.L.R. 21 M. 91 : 8 M.L.J. 28, Ittappan v. Manavikrama (1897) I.L.R. 21 M. 153: 8 M.L.J. 92, Dobson and Barlow Ltd. v. The Bengal Spinning and Weaving Company (1896). I.L.R. 21 B. 126, Murti v. Bhola Ram (1896) I.L.R. 18 A. 403, Sheo Prasad v. Lalit Kuar (1896) I.L.R. 18 A. 403, Dan Dayal v. Manna Lal (1914) I.L.R. 36 A. 564 and in Raghoonath Misser v. Gobindnarain (1895) I.L.R. 22 C.451 it was expressly held that execution of an assignment within the jurisdiction would enable the Calcutta High Court to entertain the suit with reference to Clause 12 of its charter, the terms of which are not for the present purpose distinguishable from those of Section 20(c). In these circumstances I am constrained to concur in the decision of the learned Judge and I would therefore dismiss the Letters Patent appeal with costs. Krishnan, J.

(3.) The question for our decision is, whether the assignment of a promissory note by the payee to the plaintiff is a part of the cause of action within the meaning of Section 20, Clause (c), C.P.C. so as to give jurisdiction to the Court within whose local limits it took place. The learned Judge who heard the revision petition and against whose judgment the present appeal is filed answered the question in the affirmative following Read v. Brown (1873) L.E. 8 C.P. 107. After careful consideration I am inclined to agree with him.