The plaintiff can sue on either the promissory note or the debt. The court has jurisdiction over the claim as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.

Stone, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff is suing defendant 1 personally and defendant 2 in respect of his share in the joint family property for the sum of Rs. 12,000 with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 10,000 with half-yearly rests calculated at Re. 0-12-6 per cent, per mensem until the date of decree and thereafter at 6 per cent, on the total amount until realisation in the following circumstances. On 17th November 1930 defendant 1 went to the plaintiff and asked him to give a letter that would enable him (defendant 1) to obtain from the plaintiffs Madras Office the sum of Rs. 10,000. That was a matter that took place outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. A letter was given which empowered the holder of that letter to go to the plaintiffs Madras firm and require the plaintiffs agent at Madras to pay at Madras to the order of defendant 1 Rs. 10,000 together with the nadapu rate of interest from 17th November 1930 to the date of presentation and debit the said amount in the name of defendant 1 and note on the letter that payment had been made. To follow out the history of that letter I will go somewhat out of historical sequence. Defendant 1 did not take that letter to Madras, did not present it for payment at Madras and was not paid by the plaintiff at Madras, but he endorsed it over to a third party at a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court add that third party took it to Madras received the money at Madras and the fact of the receipt by that person is endorsed on the letter. Now to return to the sequence of events, after that letter had been given, defendant 1 gave to the plaintiff a promissory note which is expressed to be payable on demand, no place of payment being mentioned. The relevant part of it is as follows:

The amount due by me (defendant 1) by reason of baying received from you (the plaintiff) a hundi directing me (defendant 1) to receive the money with interest from your Madras firm is Rs. 10,000. For this amount of Rs. 10,000 the interest shall be calculated at Re. 0-12-6 per cent, per mensem and the total of the interest and principal I (that is defendant 1) shall on demand pay you (the plaintiff) or your order and get a return of this promissory note.

2. Upon that is endorsed for the sum of Rs. 10,000 mentioned in the pro-note herein I shall pay interest at Re. 0-12-6 per mensem once every six months.

3. That promissory note was given at a place outside the jurisdiction of this Court. On 27th October 1932 on behalf of the plaintiff a lawyers letter was sent to defendant 1, the material terms of which are as follows:

In respect of the promissory note executed by you in favour of our said clients for Rs. 10,000 with compound interest thereon at Re. 0-12-6 per cent, per mensem with half-yearly rests there is now due and owing by you to our clients the sum of Rs. 10,000 for principal and rupees 1,449-0-6 for Interest making in all a total sum of Rs. 11,449-0-6 and that you have in spite of repeated demands failed and neglected to pay the amount due.

4. They thereupon gave notice that payment must be made within ten days or proceedings will be taken. No action was taken on that letter and payment was not made. The only other fact that it is necessary to mention is that in the debit and credit account of the plaintiff there appears as credited to the defendant the sum of Rs. 470-3-6 which is made up of the interest and interest on interest due on the promissory note at the rate above mentioned, that is, Re. 0-12.6 per cent, per mensem with six monthly rests. The defence is that those facts disclosed only one cause of action and that cause of action is upon the note, and, if upon the note, this Court has no jurisdiction. Alternatively, or rather in addition, it is said that the cause of action, assuming there is a cause of action on the loan, does not arise within the jurisdiction of this Court. With regard to the contention that in circumstances like these the plaintiff is restricted to his a