Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
DAVE, MODI, JJ.
Ramanlal
Versus
Ramgopal
First Appeal No. 5 of 1952
Decided On : 17-11-1953
JURISDICTION - Churu Court - Jurisdiction over defendants - Submission to jurisdiction - Limitation - Addition of defendant - Date of application for impleading - Interest - Stipulation - Rate - Compound interest - Discretion of court.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a money-lender in Burma, sued defendants, brothers who also did business in Burma, for recovery of money lent. Defendants denied the claim and contended that the plaintiff owed them money. The trial court dismissed the suit for want of proof, but on appeal, the High Court remanded the case for further evidence and a fresh decision. The plaintiff then added the second defendant as a party. The trial court decreed the suit against both defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Churu Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as the defendants had submitted to its jurisdiction by contesting the suit on the merits. The suit was not barred by limitation as the application to implead the second defendant was made within six years of the cause of action. The plaintiff was entitled to interest on the debt at the rate of 9% per annum, but not compound interest. The trial court had rightly exercised its discretion in awarding pending and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Issues: 1. Whether the Churu Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the debt and, if so, at what rate.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A court has jurisdiction over any person who has by his conduct precluded himself from objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court. Such submission may take place in a variety of ways, e.g., by a party suing as plaintiff, by his voluntarily appearing as a defendant, or by his having made it a part of an express or implied contract that if certain questions arise, he agrees to refer them for decision to the Courts of a given country. 2. Where, after the institution of a suit a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made to party. However, the correct principle is that it is the date of the application for impleading a party, which is material, and not the date on which the party is actually brought on the record. 3. In the absence of any stipulation as to interest or proof of mercantile usage, interest is not chargeable. However, if there is a stipulation as to interest, the plaintiff is entitled to charge interest at the agreed rate. In the absence of any agreement as to the rate of interest, the court may fix a reasonable rate.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.
MODI, J. :- This is a first appeal by defendants Ramanlal and Murlidhar against a judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Churu, dated 22-9-1951, in suit for money.
2. The plaintiff Ramgopals case as set out in ness as a money-lender in Moulmein (Burma) in the name of Bilas Rai Ramgopal and that the defendants who were brothers also did business there and used to borrow money from him from time to time. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he left Burma on 11-12-1941, as a result of the Second World War having broken cut there, and that on 6-12-1941 a, sum of Rs. 21,142/7/- remained outstanding against the defendants, and on 10-12-1941, further sums of Rs. 581/4/- and Rs. 2000/- were debited against the defendants so that in all Rs. 23,723/11/- became due from them. To this the plaintiff added a sum of Rs. 3947-5-3 as interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent. per mensem from 6-12-1941, up to the date of the suit thus bringing the total to Rs. 27,671/0/3.
It was admitted that the defendants had paid back sums amounting to Rs. 21,000/-. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,671/0/3 with pending and future interest. The defendants resisted the suit. Defendant Ramanlal who described himself as residing at Churu but then living at Calcutta completely repudiated the plaintiffs claim. He contended that he did not borrow any money from the plaintiff and that on the other hand the former had advanced a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to the plaintiff on interest at his request in order to help him to set up some kind of business in Moulmein and the defendant did so because he knew the plaintiff and had full faith in his integrity. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff left Burma for India in December 1941.
It may be pointed out that the plaintiff had brought his suit in the first instance on a balance sheet only which he had brought over from Burma with himself as he had left his account books in Burma. This provided an opportunity to the defendants to contend that it was impossible that the plaintiff should have advanced such a considerable amount without having taken any writing from the defendants. Defendant Ramanlal further questioned the jurisdiction of the Churu Court to try the suit as according to him he had never resided at Churu at any material time nor did the cause of action partly or wholly arise there. He also alleged that he had instituted a suit in the High Court at Calcutta for the recovery of Rs. 21,000/- together with interest against the plaintiff. Other pleas raised by him were that the suit was bad for non-joinder of parties and that it was barred by limitation.
3. It will be convenient to state here that the other defendant Murlidhar, who was later added as a defendant on 11-6-48 by an amendment of the plaint, also denied the plaintiffs claim and filed his written statement generally on the same line as that of his brother Ramanlal.
4. The learned District Judge, Churu, in whose Court the plaintiff had instituted his suit, dismissed it on 21-10-1946. The plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court of the former State of Bikaner where the appeal was allowed and the case remanded for further evidence and a fresh decision. This happened on 29-10-1947. It was after the remand that the plaintiff obtained permission to implead Murlidhar as defendant also and impleaded him as such. The case had in the meantime been transferred to the Civil Judge, Churu, owing to re-organization of Courts and the learned Civil Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit against both defendants. This appeal is directed against the above judgment and decree.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has assailed the trial Courts decree on a number of grounds. His first contention was that the Churu court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. His argument was that admittedly the cause of action had arisen outside the jurisdiction of the Churu Court and for that matter the Courts of the former State of Bikaner (had no juri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
