Assignment of a cause of action, including the assignment of rights under an insurance policy and Railway Receipts, can confer jurisdiction on a court if the assignment takes place within the court's jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS is a suit by Alliance Assurance Co. , Ltd. , against the Union of India as the main defendant and the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company of India Ltd. , as a pro forma defendant only. The claim is for a sum of Rs. 3,680-5-0. There is an additional claim for Rs. 1,000/- as damages for vyrongful detention, but that has not been pressed before me by the learned counsel for the plaintiff". A short but important point of jurisdiction is the real bone of contention in the suit.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's claim arises in this way. The Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. despatched by railway certain goods from Bansabati to Delhi and also insured those goods with the plaintiff. The Railway delivered most of the goods. There was, however, short delivery of 12 tyres. The value of these 12 tyres is Rs. 3,680-5-0. The Goodyear Tyre claimed this money from the plaintiff under the policy of insurance covering these goods. The plaintiff paid that amount to the Goodyear Tyre. The Goodyear Tyre thereupon assigned to the plaintiff all their right, title and interest in the goods and the relative Railway Receipts. The plaintiff insurance company thus became subrogated to the rights of the consignor. The plaintiff Insurance Company now sues the Union of India making their insured, the Goodyear Tyres, as a pro forma defendant.

( 3 ) THE following issues were raised by the learned counsel for the Union:1. Were the goods alleged to be short delivered, insured with the plaintiff as alleged in paragraph 2 of the plaint? 2. What is the value of the said goods? 3. Has the defendant No. 2 validiy transferred or assigned to the plaintiff the right, title and interest in the said goods?

( 4 ) HAS the Court jurisdiction to try this suit?

( 5 ) TO what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?4. There is an admitted brief of documents marked Exhibit 'a' in this suit. The only oral evidence is that of Mr. Murthi who was called on behalf of the plaintiff. No oral evidence has been called on behalf of the Union of India. Mr. Murthi's evidence proves the consignment of the goods under the different Railway Receipts on the 10th June, 1953, the short delivery of the 12 tyres, the short certificate issued bv the Railway, and the value of the goods on the basis of the price lists which he has proved. He has also proved that the Goodyear Tyre made the claim on the Policy against the plaintiff Insurance Company and has received the full amount of money being the sum of Rs. 3,680-5-0. I may state here that Mr. Murthi is in the employment of the Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Co. ever since 1925. There was formal cross-examination of this witness by the Counsel for the Union, but Mr. Murthi's evidence remains unshaken, and in my opinion, must be accepted. 5. Issues Nos. 1 and 2: On the basis of the evidence of Mr. Murthi and the documents I am satisfied and I hold that the goods short delivered were covered by the Policy or Insurance and that the value of the said goods was Rs. 3,680-5-0. I answer the first two issues accordingly.

( 6 ) ISSUE No. 3; This issue is covered by a judgment in Suit No. 1020 of 1954 between the same parties--Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and Goodyear Tyre, deciding this identical issue and on indentical terms of insurance policy. I delivered that judgment on November 26, 1958 holding that the assignment and the transfer, in such case is good, valid and enforceable on a Policy of this nature. As I still remain of the same view, it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to discuss this issue any further. I, therefore, answer Issue! No. 3 in the affirmative.

( 7 ) ISSUE No. 4: This issue relates to the issue of jurisdiction and is the only issue which was seriously argued before me. It is contended on behalf of the Union of India that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit as against the Union of India. The plaintiff pleaded jurisdiction in the plaint on the ground of the issue of the Insurance Policy wit