Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff brought this suit in the I District Munsifs Court at Tuticorin. His claim as against the defendant who carries on business in Rangoon was for shortfall in goods ordered and for damages on account of the inferiority of quality of those goods. On an examination of the plaint it is clear that the suit as framed is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant as his vendor. A preliminary issue was taken that the District Munsifs Court at Tuticorin had no jurisdiction to try the suit because no part of the cause of action had arisen there and the point was argued that in fact the relationship here was not that of vendor and purchaser at all but that of principal and agent, the defendant being a mere commission agent purchasing goods on the orders of the plaintiff. This was treated as a question of law by the District Munsif who held that the relationship was that of principal and agent and that the suit did not lie in the District Munsifs Court at Tuticorin. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, this finding was affirmed. No evidence whatever was taken in the case and none of the other issues raised were tried. In our view, t