A.S. Kadar Rowther and Others vs M.L. Vencatachellapathy Chetty

Sundara Aiyar, J.—Two points have been argued in this revision petition. The first point relates to the jurisdiciion of the Small Cause Court

to try the suit. Two contentions have been urged in respect of the plea of want of jurisdiction. The first is, that the suit must be regarded as one for

an account, which a Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of. It does not appear from anything placed before me that the

defendants were the agents of the plaintiff or occupied any other position with reference to him which would make it their duty in law to render

accounts to him. The decision in Kailas Chandra Mandal v. Kiranenda Ghosh 10 Ind. Cas. 83 does not help the defendants, because there is

nothing in this case to show that the taking of any accounts was necessary. It would be quite enough if the plaintiff proved what goods he sent to

the defendants, of which he was entitled to receive the pi ice and whatever other amounts he was entitled to receive on account of hundis sent by

him for encashment, I think this contention cannot be upheld.

The next contention is, that the defendants were rot permanent residents of Kumbaconam and that, therefore, the Kumbaconam Court had no

jurisdiction to try this suit against them. It does not appear from the judgment of the lower Court, or from any thing else before me, that this

objection on the ground that the permanent residence of the defendants was beyond the jurisdiction of the Kumbaconam Sub-Court was really

raised before the lower Court, I am not to be understood as being of opinion that, assuming that the defendants were not permanent residents

within the jurisdiction of the Kumbaconam Court, that would oust the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge if, at the time of the suit, they were

actually and voluntarily residing within the jurisdiction of that Court. Bat as the point does not appear to have been specifically raised, it is not

necessary for me to decide it.

The next objection relates to interest. The Subordinate Judge has found, from the course of dealings between the parties, that the plaintiff was

entitled to interest. There is also foundation for hi3 statement that mercantile dealings generally carry interest. I think this contention is also bound to

fail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.