The main legal point established is that the suit was not for determination of a right to immoveable property, and the second defendant was deemed to have acquiesced to the court's jurisdiction.

1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 460.

2. The first defendant executed a bond, dated the 25th December 1869, for Rs. 5,000, hypothecating 2 velis 11 maus of land in the District of South Tanjore to Srinivasa Ayyangar, who transferred the hypothecation bond and right and debt due thereon to the plaintiff by deed, dated the 21st of October 1875.

3. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 4 of 1876 in the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam on the bond against the first defendant, and obtained decree for sale, dated the 6th April 1876, of all the lands hypothecated. On the 17th of August 1876 plaintiff became purchaser of all the hypothecated lands for Rs. 6,000.

4. Part of the lands so purchased were 151/2 maus in Pattakal Katlai, within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Kumbakonam. After the purchase, plaintiff discovered that 2 maus out of the 15J maus had been acquired by the South Indian Railway Company in 1874, and that the purchase money (Rs. 460) was lodged in the treasury at Kumbakonam under the Land Acquisition Act as being claimed by the mother (since deceased) of the first defendant, who, it is said, sold the 2 maus to the Railway Company. The plaintiff applied to the Subordinate Judge of South Tanjore for an order to pay him the Rs. 460 purchase money, but by order, dated the 28th of February 1880, it was directed that the question of title thereto should be decided by regular suit.

5. The suit, No. 230 of 1880, was accordingly filed by the plaintiff in September 1880 against the first defendant for a declaration of right to the Rs. 460 and to recover that sum. The first defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the District Munsifs Court of Tiruvadi, and therefore this suit is filed in that Court.

6. Originally, the now first defendant, the sole heir of his deceased mother, was the only defendant, but in his written statement he stated that he had executed a deed on the 16th of April 1880 assigning his interest in that purchase money to the now second defendant in satisfaction of a decree, and disclaiming all interest in the suit.

7. On the 21st January 1881, the second defendant signed a vakalatnama to N. Ramachandra Ayyar, Vakil, authorizing him to present a petition in this suit to he made a party hereto, and represent his claim and submit written statement, etc. The second defendant was made a party to this suit by order of the District Munsif on reading the first defendants written statement.

8. The second defendant filed his written statement and thereby raises the question of law--Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the case--

(1) because the suit should be treated as one in which the plaintiff sues to establish a right or interest in immoveable property (the money representing the land), and both land and money are outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;

(2) because the second defendant does not reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court;

(3) the second defendant also contended that this suit is barred under Chapter IV, Sections 42 and 43 Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as the land was acquired by the "Railway Company in 1874, before the Suit 4 of 1876 was instituted;

(4) the second defendant contends that the suit is barred by limitation.

9. The Court of First Instance and of Appeal decided against the second defendant, and he now asks for Revision on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case as pointed out, and also on the two grounds that the suit was barred under Chapter IV, Civil Procedure Code, and by limitation.

10. First Ground.--Is this a suit to establish a right to, or interest in, immoveable property?--Section 16d, Civil Procedure Code. In terms, it certainly is not, as the relief sought is a declaration of plaintiffs right to the money, and payment of it to him. It is the money alone and not the land in respect of which relief is prayed for. The land is vested in and in the possession of, the Railway Company, discharged of all incumbrances