- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Roghoonath Misser v. Gobindnarain
Factual and Procedural Background
This case involves an action for the recovery of Rs. 2,500, the amount of a hundi, together with interest and protesting charges, initiated by the endorsees against the drawers of the hundi. The defendants responded with several defenses, including issues related to the plaintiffs' formal obligations such as presentation for acceptance and payment, and notice of dishonour. They also claimed that the plaintiffs acted merely as agents for their endorsers under an arrangement that precluded recovery on the hundi. Additionally, the defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, given that no part of the cause of action allegedly arose within its local jurisdiction.
- Whether the endorsement to the plaintiffs, which occurred in Calcutta, constitutes a part of the cause of action sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Clause 12 of the Charter of the Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The Court lacks jurisdiction because no part of the cause of action arose within its local jurisdiction.
- The endorsement to the plaintiffs, relied upon to establish jurisdiction, does not directly and immediately involve the defendants and thus should not be considered part of the cause of action.
- The defendants cited cases supporting the proposition that acts not directly attributable to them cannot form part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes.
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The endorsement to the plaintiffs in Calcutta is a necessary part of the cause of action in an action on a hundi by an endorser against the drawer.
- Precedents such as Kellie v. Fraser and Doya Narain Tewary v. The Secretary of State for India support the position that all acts necessary to give a right of action constitute part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kellie v. Fraser (I.L.R. 2 Cal. 445) | Definition of cause of action as "the entire bundle of facts which would of necessity be proved." | Guided the Court to consider the endorsement as part of the cause of action, supporting jurisdiction. |
| Doya Narain Tewary v. The Secretary of State for India (I.L.R. 14 Cal. 256) | "The whole cause of action" means all things necessary to give a right of action. | Supported the principle that the endorsement, necessary for the right of action, forms part of the cause of action, establishing jurisdiction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the jurisdictional challenge, emphasizing that the question of jurisdiction must be resolved before considering the merits. The defendants argued that since no act directly attributable to them occurred within the Court's jurisdiction, the Court lacked jurisdiction. However, the Court rejected this narrow interpretation, noting that the endorsement to the plaintiffs in Calcutta was a necessary element of the cause of action. The Court relied on established precedents which defined the cause of action as encompassing all facts necessary to prove the claim, including acts not directly performed by the defendants but essential to the right of action. Thus, because the endorsement occurred in Calcutta and was integral to the plaintiffs' claim as endorsees, a part of the cause of action arose within the Court's jurisdiction. Having established jurisdiction, the Court proceeded to enter a decree in favor of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed with interest and costs.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the endorsement to the plaintiffs, which occurred within its jurisdiction, constitutes a part of the cause of action.
The decision resulted in a decree in favor of the plaintiffs for the recovery of the hundi amount with interest and costs. This ruling clarifies that for jurisdictional purposes, acts necessary to establish the right of action, even if not directly performed by the defendant, are considered part of the cause of action. No new precedent was set beyond the application of existing principles.
1. This is an action for the recovery of Rs. 2,500, the amount of a hundi together with interest and protesting charges, by the endorsees against the drawers of the hundi.
2. The defendants have pleaded several matters in answer to the action, some of which relate to the performance on the plaintiffs' part of formal acts, such as the presentation of the hundi for acceptance and payment, and notice of dishonour. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs were merely the agents of their endorsers for the purpose of collecting the amount of the hundi, and were bound accordingly by an arrangement between their endorsers and the defendants by which the former were precluded from recovering on the hundi. In addition to these pleas, it was also objected that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
3. The contention with respect to this last point, which it is necessary to dispose of before dealing with the merits of the case, was that no part of the cause of action arose within the local jurisdiction of the Court, and that, accordingly, and notwithstanding leave given under Clause 12 of the Charter, the Court has no jurisdiction over the suit. What appears is that the defendants' firm drew the hundi at Benares, on a branch of their firm at Bombay, in favour of a firm of Bholanath Bissessur Pershad, which carried on business at Mirzapore and Calcutta, and that the latter firm endorsed the hundi to the plaintiffs at Calcutta. Mr. Dunne's argument for the defendants was that no act, which cannot be attributed directly and immediately, that is, without the intervention of any third person, to the defendant, can enter into the cause of action, and that, accordingly, the endorsement to the plaintiffs in the present case, which alone was relied upon to give the Court jurisdiction, formed no part of the cause of action. He contended that his proposition was supported, not only by the cases cited by the plaintiffs, but also by others which he himself cited. Since in all of them the act upon which the Court founded its jurisdiction was either in reality or in effect the act of the defendant, I cannot say I am prepared to go that length with Mr. Dunne. But at all events none of these cases seem to me to involve any principle, the effect of which would be to limit the scope of the cause of action in the manner contended for. Indeed the tendency of some of them, such as Kellie v. Fraser I.L.R. 2 Cal. 445 and Doya Narain Tewary v. The Secretary of State for India I.L.R. 14 Cal. 256, which were relied upon by the plaintiffs, and by which, I think, I ought to be guided, seems to me to be quite to the contrary. In the former of these cases, Mr. Justice Kennedy described the cause of action (in relation to the 12th clause of the Charter of this Court) as "the entire bundle of facts which would of necessity be proved." Clearly the endorsement to the plaintiffs in an action on a hundi by endorser against drawer is one of such facts. Again, in the latter case, Mr. Justice Mitter says: "It has been uniformly held here that the words 'the whole cause of action' in Section 12 of the Letters Patent mean all things necessary to give a right of action," from which it would follow that anything necessary to give a right of action would constitute part of the cause of action. The right of action of a plaintiff suing as endorser of a hundi is directly dependent on the endorsement, which, accordingly, on the principle stated by Mitter, J., must form part of the cause of action. Since, therefore, the endorsement to the plaintiffs in the present case took place in Calcutta, a part of the cause of action arose here, and, leave having been given, the Court has jurisdiction.
4. [A decree was entered in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount claimed with interest and costs]
Alert