BRIJU PANDY Vs. GANGU AHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision relates to a suit for the recovery of money due on a handnote said to have been executed by the defendant on 16 Kuar 1341 Fasli in mauza Bania Chhappar in the munsifi of Gopalgunj. The defence was twofold: (1) that the hand-note was not genuine, valid and for consideration, and (a) that under Section 7, U.P. Agriculturists Belief Act, 1934, the Munsif of Gopalgunj had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff as regards the validity of the hand-note, but held that the Gopalgunj Court had no jurisdiction under Section 7, Agriculturists Belief Act, referred to. It was accordingly ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper Court. An appeal was preferred against this order, and the Subordinate Judge who heard it agreed with the trial Court that "the suit was not entertainable in the Court at Gopalgunj."

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff-applicant that the lower Courts were wrong in holding that Section 7 of the Act, operated to deprive the Gopalgunj Court of jurisdiction to try the suit. There is no dispute that the defendant is aresident of mauza Bairiya in the District of Gorakh-pore and is an agriculturist within the meaning of the United Provinces Act in question. The trial Court accepted the plaintiff's oral evidence that the loan was advanced, and the hand- note executed and delivered, in Bania Chappar within the Gopalgunj munsifi. The cause of action for a suit on such a contract arises either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where the contract was to be performed, and it does not seem to have been so much as urged on behalf of the defendant that he was to repay the loan at any place other than Bania Ghappar where "the transaction was done." We may therefore take it, Sonirm Jeetmull V/s. R.D. Tata & Co. that the money was to be repaid to the plaintiff in Bania Chappar within the Gopalgunj Munsifi. Under Section 20, Civil P.C. suits on hand-notes may be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction "the cause of action, wholly or in part arises." Section 7, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, 1934, however provides that: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, every suit for recovering an unsecured loan in which the defendant...is an agriculturist, shall be instituted and tried in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction: (a) the agriculturist defendant...actually and voluntarily resides or (b) in case the agriculturist defendant...resides outside the limits of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, (i) the holding or the landad property of agriculturist defendantis...is situate, and (ii) if the agriculturist defendant has (no) holding or landed property, the agriculturist defendant carries on the profession by virtue of which he is classed as an agriculturist.

(3.) The trial Court overruled the argument that the United Provinces Act, being a provincial Act, cannot take away the jurisdiction of the Gopalgunj Court, on the ground that the object of the Legislature, viz. the protection of United Provinces agriculturists and their relief from indebtedness, would be frustrated and the Act become a dead letter if that contention of the plaintiff were to be accepted. The flower Appellate Court took the same view on the ground that the Act makes no reference to the residence of the plaintiff and lays down, irrespective of such residence, that whenever a suit for an unsecured debt is filed against an agriculturist defendant, who is a resident of the United Provinces, the Courts in those provinces and no other Courts have jurisdiction to entertain it.