BENI MADHAB SIKDAR Vs. SARAT CHANDRA JANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the defendants from a preliminary decision in a suit instituted at Alipore Munsif's Court. Defendant 1 is the liquidator of a Co-operative Society at Birulia in Tamluk sub-division of Midnapore. That society was liquidated by an order of 12 September 1931 and defendant 1, an officer of Co-operative Credit Societies, was appointed liquidator. In the course of his duties as such liquidator, defendant 1 assessed the plaintiff-opposite party at Rs. 1,875 as debt due by him and called upon him to pay the amount. A registered letter demanding the money and threatening a certificate in the alternative was sent to the plaintiff who resides within the jurisdiction of Alipore. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted a suit at Alipore Munsif's Court claiming that he had indeed once been a member of the Birulia Society but he had long ago ceased to be a member and he was not liable for any debt to the Society. He further made a claim of Rs. 300 as due to him from the said Society. The suit was valued at Rs. 350 only. The defendant raised preliminary issues to the effect: (1) that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit having regard to the provisions of Section 42(6), Co-operative Societies Act; (2) that the suit ought to have been instituted at Tamluk or Midnapore and the Court at Alipore had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and (3) that the suit was under- valued, that on a proper valuation, the value would be Rs. 2,175 and the Munsif's Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On all the three points the decision of the Munsif was in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) Upon hearing the learned advocates on both sides, and having regard to the decisions in Mukand Lal V/s. Malhotra Bank, Hafizabad AIR 1933 Lah 442 and Vaikunta Bhat V/s. K, Sarvothama Rao AIR 1936 Mad 574, it is clear that Section 42(6), Co-operative Societies Act, does not bar the present suit. By that section the liquidator is entitled to determine the contribution to be made by the members and past members of the Society. But if a party denies that he is a member, he is entitled to have that decision determined by the Court. The plaintiff's case here is that although he was a past member, he terminated his membership by a notice long before the liquidation and he is therefore not liable to any amount to the Society. The Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) On the question of the territorial jurisdiction, the fact is that the plaintiff who is a learned advocate of the High Court with a well-established practice resides at Rash Behari Avenue in Calcutta within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court and he received a registered letter there on 18 March 1936 and the Court has found that the demand contained in the letter from the liquidator gave rise to the cause of action in the suit. The cases in Engineering Supplies, Ltd. V/s. Dhandhania & Co. and Parameswara Pattar V/s. Viyathan Mahedevi AIR 1923 Mad 272 were quoted to show the definition of a cause of action It consists of the entire set of facts which gave rise to the claim. It includes everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment. It includes every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, It is urged for the petitioner that the plaintiff in order to succeed in the suit has only to show that the assessment made upon him by the liquidator is wrong. As soon as he has proved it, he will be entitled to succeed. It is not necessary for him to prove that he received a registered letter of demand from the liquidator. I am therefore of opinion that the Court below committed an error of law in holding that there was a territorial jurisdiction of Alipore in this suit. The suit should be laid at Tanaluk.