The place of payment of money determines the place where the cause of action arises for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court.

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against the Order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, directing the return of the plaint under Order 7, rule 10, for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that that Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. The defendant has also filed a memorandum of Cross-objections against the direction to pay half costs of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, a registered firm carrying on business at Vijayawada, placed an order on the defendant carrying on business at Ganganagar, for the supply of 600 bags of Bengal-gram and 200 bags of Bengal-gram-dhall at Rs. 10 and Rs. 12 per maund respectively. The plaintiff s agent, one Venkatarangaiah, had gone to Ganganagar to acquaint himself with the business there, as one of its previous agents had taken a job elsewhere, and at that time Rs. 500 was paid to the defendant at Ganganagar. Subsequently, when a hundi for Rs. 5,000 was drawn on the plaintiff payable to the defendant through the Bank of Bikaner, the plaintiff honoured the same and paid the amount. Later, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was sent to the defendant by the plaintiff through a telegraphic money order. In this way, the plaintiff in all paid Rs. 15,500 to the defendant, but the defendant has falsely set up a payment of Rs. 10,000 to Rangaiah out of the amount of Rs. 15,500. It is the plaintiff s case that Rangaiah had no authority to receive payment, nor is the plaintiff bound by any such payment to Rangaiah. The defendant said that Rangaiah came to ganganagar representing himself as the partner of the plaintiff and accompanied by one Veeraraghavayya. They both agreed with the defendant s firm that the plaintiff would purchase goods from Ganganagar market and other places under the agency of the defendant s firm that the defendant s firm would charge commission at 0-12-0 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum ; that the agent shall store the goods on behalf of the plaintiff s firm, that the agent would have a lien over the goods till full price was paid, and that all the expenses for storing, etc. , should be borne by the plaintiff s firm. In the months of April and May, 1951, rangaiah purchased from the market through the agency of the defendant 740 bags of gram-dhall at Rs. 15 per maund and 480 bags of gram from Ganganagar market and another 480 bags of gram from Sadulsahar Mandi at Rs. 11-12-0 per maund and at that time Rangaiah paid Rs. 500 as cash deposit and Rs. 5,000 by means of a hundi drawn by Veeraraghavayya on the plaintiff s firm. On 3rd may, 1951, Rangaiah borrowed Rs. 10,000 from the defendant which he required for some other business and signed the defendant s account book in token of the receipt of that amount. As there was a fall in the price of gram and gram- dhall, the defendant s firm drew a hundi for Rs. 5,000 on the plaintiff s firm, and they started to make several allegations to avoid the consequences of the loss. The defendant s case was that the plaintiff s firm became liable to pay Rs. 12,858-1-0 apart from interest.

( 3 ) SEVERAL issues were framed as to what are the true terms of the contract between the parties, whether the defendant committed breach of the contract, to what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled, is the alleged payment of Rs. 10,000 by the defendant to Rangaiah true and binding on the plaintiff, is the plaintiff entitled for the suit money on the ground of fraud alleged in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder and whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 4 ) ON the issue of what were the terms of the contract between the parties, the subordinate Judge held that the understanding was for the purchase of such quantity of gram and gram-dhall as was required by the plaintiff; that there was no agreement with regard to any fixed price, but that the price was to be the prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase, that the amount of Rs. 15,500 was paid as advance and not towards pri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document