Messrs. Kashmiri Mal Om Pakkash vs Messrs Durga Parshad Gulzari Lal and Another

Mahajan & P.C. Pandit, JJ.—This is an appeal from an order dated 8th July 1959 passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Jullundur, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the Jullundur Courts had no jurisdiction to try this suit.

It appears that the firm Messrs Durga Parshad-Gulzari Lal of Orria (U.P.), defendant No. 1, had a bahi account with the Kanpur Branch of the firm Messrs Khushi Ram Raghunath Rai of Jullundur, defendant No. 2. In the said account, Rs. 10,039/8/3 were due by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 had also agreed to pay Interest at the rate of Rs. (sic) per cent per mensem and was thus liable to pay Rs. 1,505/14/- by way of interest. The total amount therefore, due to defendant No. 2 was Rs. 11,545/6/3. On 4th September 1958 defendant No. 2 is alleged to have sold all their rights in this account to the plaintiff-firm Messrs Kashmiri Lal, Om Parksah of Jullundur for Rs. 2,000/- only by means of an unregistered sale-deed, Exhibit P. 1 On the basis of this assignment, on 4th October, 1958 the plaintiff filed the present suit against defendants 1 and 2 for the recovery of Rs. 11,5000/-, giving up his claim to interest to the extent of Rs. 45/6/3. This suit was filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Jullundur.

The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, who raised a preliminary objection that the Jullundur Courts had no jurisdiction to try the same, because there was an agreement between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 that in case of a dispute between them, only the Courts at Kanpur would have jurisdiction to try the same. It was also averred that the assignment of the debt by defendant No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff was without consideration, collusive and was a fictitious transaction, which was entered into merely to give jurisdiction to the Courts at Jullundar to try this suit. It may be mentioned that defendant No. 2 supported the case of plaintiff.

On the pleadings of the parties the following preliminary issue was framed:-

Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to try this case.

The learned Senior Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that no. valid assignment was made and the sale-deed, Exhibit P. 1, was written simply to give jurisdiction to the Courts at Jullundur to try this case, so that defendant No. 2 might not have to go to Kanpur for filling this suit. It was further held that since no part of the cause of action arose at Jullundur, the suit could not be tried at this place. He consequently, directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court.

It is undisputed that in the present case even if a part of the cause of action arose in Jullundur the Courts at Jullundur will have jurisdiction to try the suit. It follows, therefore, that if the alleged assignment had, in fact, taken place in Jullundur, a part of the cause of action would arise at this place. So the sole question for decision is whether the assignment had actually taken place or it was a bogus transaction affected merely to give jurisdiction to the Jullundur Courts. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the mere fact that the sale-deed, Exhibit P. 1, had been executed in favour of the plaintiff showed that and assignment had taken place and the question of its validity could not be gone into for the purposes of determining the point regarding jurisdiction. For this submission, reliance was placed on three authorities i.e. AIR 1933 940 (Lahore) , Muzaffar Ali Khan and Another Vs. L. Jawanda Mal Lala Ditmal and Another, and an unreported decision in Firm Brij Lal-Hira Lal v. Kashmiri Lal Civil Revision No. 608 of 1957 (decided on 27th August 1958), But these rulings have no bearing on the facts of the present case, because in those cases the assignments had admittedly taken place. In the instant case, however, the finding of the Court below is that the alleged assignment was a bogus transaction and had been entered into simply to give jurisdiction to the Jullundur Courts to try this suit. As already mentioned above, Exhibit P. 1 was not a registered document. No. convincing proof had been given that even the sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- mentioned therein passed between the parties. The plaintiff had not produced their account books to show that this amount was actually paid to defendant No. 2. It has not been shown as to why defendant No. 2 sold a debt of Rs. 11,545/6/3 for a paltry sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Nand Lal, Managing Partner of the plaintiff-firm, had never gone to Orria, where defendant No. 1 was carrying on business, to make enquiries regarding the payment capacity of this firm, in spite of the fact that he had admitted in cross-examination that he had no dealings with this firm. Both the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were carrying on their business in Jullundur and it is understandable as to why the alleged assignment should be made in favour of the plaintiff firm. Since both of them had good relations with each other, the conclusion is irresistible that this alleged assignment had been effected merely to give jurisdiction to the Jullundur Court; otherwise defendant No. 2 would have to go to Kanpur to file the present suit. Nand Lal, as P.W. 6, had admitted in cross-examination that the amount due to defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 was more than Rs. 10,000/- but he did not know how much was the principal and what was the interest thereon. He did not even know if any interest was included in the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. He stated that he had instituted the present suit but he did not know how much amount he had spent towards the court-fee and other expenses. He could not even tell as to whether the court-fee paid by him was Rs. 100/- or Rs. 200/- or more. He also admitted that he had not given any notice regarding this suit to defendant No. 1. All this shows that the suit was in reality being filed by defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff was merely a figurehead. Under all these circumstances, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the alleged assignment bad not taken place and was a bogus transaction effected only to give jurisdiction to the Jullundur Courts to try the present suit.

In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The original plaint filed alongwith the appeal may be returned to the appellant.