Mockett, J.

1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:

(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit; and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.

(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of three fourths and one-fourth respectively of the entire estate.

(c) For a decree that the, plaintiff is entitled to the trusteeship of the charity and to the management of the properties attached thereto described in Schedule B together with what may be added to them on the just ascertainment of one-fourth share for the charities.

It is common ground at the Bar that a large part of the proper-ties concerned are immovable properties in Burma, the others being within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly. Paragraph 20 of the plaint states:

The cause of action arose at Srirangam, Tiruvanaikoil, Manakkal, etc. villages in the Trichinopoly district, within the jurisdiction of this Court, in, February, 1932 -when Raja Ramanatha Reddi died and when plaintiff became aware of the unfair allotment to Krishnaswami Reddis share out of Chidambara Reddiars estate.

This plea is technically defective as it does not allege how and where the cause of action arose in terms of Sections 16, 17 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is however obvious from a reading of the plaint that part of the cause of action arose in Trichinopoly and part in, Burma. The defendants never suggested otherwise, and under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they would not have been permitted to take this technical point of pleading as, to jurisdiction at the trial had events, followed their normal course. The defendants did in fact, take an objection relating to court-fee, as a result of which the petitioner,; in the words of his affidavit filed in I.A, No. 1280 of 1938,. "paid a very heavy additional court-fee of Rs. 7,910 rendered payable in respect of properties situate in Burma, on 11th. January, 1938." As an important question concerning jurisdiction, is before us I am noticing the above; but actually it has not been contended before us that, had it not been for the following circumstances, this suit was not properly brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly.

2. On April 1st, 1937, the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation. Section 46 Sub-section (2) is as follows:

Burma shall cease to be part of India.

On the 16th of November, 1938, six years after the plaintiff had filed his suit in Trichinopoly, the defendants filed a petition praying for leave to file an additional written statement. The affidavit in support of that petition alleges (1) that the properties are situate partly in British India within the local limits of this Courts jurisdiction and partly in British Burma which formed part of British India when this suit was instituted, and (2) that out of the suit properties certain named items in the schedule are situate in Burma. Paragraph 4 is as follows:

Under the Government of India Act, 1935, Section 46 (2), Burma including British Burma has ceased to be part of India including British India from 1st April, 1937. This Court, being a British Indian Court, has, therefor, ceased to have, jurisdiction o