9911796707
TMI Blog1922 (10) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged that he had not properly accounted for monies that he had received, and the present plaintiff was brought into that suit as a surety. A decree having been obtained, and the, then agent, who was the first defendant in those proceedings, having been found to be indebted to the Kovilagam and being a person of no means, the present plaintiff as surety had to pay. In this suit the surety wishes to set aside the decree in the earlier suit. He makes as parties the present representatives of the agent and the present Ranee who is the representative of the then principal and is now the head of the Kovilagam. The defendants other than the Ranee reside in Madras. They are not British subjects but are subjects of the State of Cochin. In order to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, though repeatedly called upon to produce by the Court and by the sureties, the collection papers including certain accounts and ledgers and thus effectively keeping it beyond the reach of the sureties and no one being in a position then to expose the frauds committed by them, the Courts had to pass a decree. It. is said that what happened was this. That decree having been obtained in Malabar by false evidence and concealment of these very documents, he appealed to this Court, and that the guardian of certain minor respondents and the 5th defendant's predecessor conspired together to prevent the Court from ascertaining, as was a fact, that these documents said to be material were in the possession of one or another of those parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fraud does form part of that cause of action. I am not surprised that the learned Judge did not appreciate that because I am fairly sure that he was not told of that view and no one would read it out of paragraph 8 without the clearer explanation of the true inward meaning of paragraph 8 which has been made to us in this Court. That being so, in my judgment, this Court has jurisdiction to grant the leave. 3. It is then said that it really does not give a cause of action at all and if the fact alleged to have taken place in Madras does not give a cause of action, it follows that no part of the cause of action, arose in Madras, because it must be an admissible cause of action. That contention is put on the ground that it has been decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here would be no ground at all in my judgment for bringing it here if it did not happen that two of the defendants reside here who, it is alleged, have in their power here a very material document. I do not think that some difficulty which is anticipated in getting this document produced in Malabar is a sufficient ground for saying that this suit, which is essentially a Malabar suit, not a Madras suit should be brought in Madras and not in Malabar. That being our view, it is unnecessary to express an opinion as to whether Kadirvelu Nainar v. Kuppusami Naicker 45 Ind. Cas. 774 : 41 M.L.J. 590 : 23 M.L.T. 372 : 8 L.W. 103 : (1918) M.W.N. 514 applies or not. 6. A second point is taken and it is this: It is urged that, as some of the defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectly arise for decision. On these grounds this appeal must be dismissed with costs and we must order the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee which he should have paid if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. John Edward Power Wallis, J. 7. The plaint on a perusal of which we are expected to express our minds in this case is culpably vague in not clearly setting out the cause of action in Madras, i.e., the specific fraud alleged to have taken place in Madras nor the date when it arose. But as the plaintiff's real case has been put before us, it resolves itself into three main points. 8. First, fraud by way of collusion between the predecessor of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the predecessor of the 5th defendant in that they co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portion of the relief which he wishes was to be recovered from the 5th defendant who resides in Malabar or from her estate which is situated in Malabar. 10. As to the question whether we should give leave to bring the whole action in this Court merely because most of the defendants reside here while the 5th defendant does not, the bearing and interpretation of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on this point is a matter of some difficulty, and I consider that it would be better not to say more on a point which is not necessary for the decision of the case, since I hold, even if the Court has the power, we should not in this case exercise it or give leave to the plaintiff to (sic). On the merits I agree that our discretion should not be use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
