SANKALCHAND HAKAMCHAND Vs. AMBALAL NAGINDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the Ahmedabad Court has jurisdiction.

(2.) The plaintiff respondent sued the defendant appellant on the ground that on the death of the respondent's father the appellant, who was a relation, was entrusted with the duty and undertook it of collecting outstandings due to his deceased father. The parties have always resided outside British India. The father's main business as Ghee merchant was also outside British India. The alleged agency, which was admittedly closed before his death, and the place of contract were outside British India The books were outside British India, and the accounts wore to be rendered and the moneys returned outside British India. Prima facie, therefore, the British Court would have no jurisdiction. 2. The respondent, however, in para. 14 of the plaint alleged that the appellant collected certain outstandings at Ahmedabad and therefore the Ahmedabad Court had jurisdiction. The appellant in his written statement denied absolutely the agency or the collection of any outstandings and raised an objection to jurisdiction on the grounds above.

(3.) The trial Court, without explicitly framing a preliminary issue as to whether any collection of the outstandings was proved, raised an issue, pure and simple, as to jurisdiction and decided it in the negative against the plaintiff respondent. The plaintiff appealed. The learned District Judge held that in the absence of evidence, the question of jurisdiction must be decided on the assumption that the allegations in the plaint were true and the alleged collection was a part of the cause of action of the plaintiff and the Ahmedabad Court, therefore, had jurisdiction, and reversed the order of the trial Court, dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction and remanded it for disposal on the merits. The defendant appeals.