Full Judgment
Pontifex, J.
1. (after stating the facts of the case as above, continued): When the plaint was presented to me for admission, finding that all the property in the agreement was out of the jurisdiction, and seeing also that the plaintiff was described as of Vogyakkool in the district of Dacca, merchant and banker, carrying on business at Durmahatta in Calcutta, and that the defendant is described of Panchthopy in the Zilla of Beerbhoom, outside of Calcutta, but who at the time, &c.;, I thought it right to admit the plaint subject to any objection as to jurisdiction. At the time of admitting the plaint the plaintiff obtained an order that the defendant should file a written statement. Mr. Bonnerjee for the plaintiff has not asked at the hearing for any decree with respect to the properties in the mofussil, or for any order for specific performance of the agreement, but he has limited himself to ask for the receipt of Rs. 4,000 with interest at the rate specified in the agreement from the date of the agreement, and also costs of the agreement. He does not give up his contention that he is entitled under the circumstances to ask for specific performance in respect of the land, but he says that the period fixed by the agreement having expired he will be content to take a decree for money. In the written statement of the defendant objection is taken as to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, and that no cause of action is shown in the plaint. I am of opinion that so far as the suit is a suit for specific performance of the agreement with respect to land, the defendant's contention is correct. I have no jurisdiction to make a decree in that respect. But inasmuch as in the agreement the plaintiff is described of Calcutta, Durmahatta, and as in fact he does carry on business there, and the money paid under the agreement was paid out of the Calcutta business, Calcutta was the place where the defendant would be fully entitled to redeem by paying the mortgage-money. The defendant admits that Rs. 4,000 was paid to him, and that the same is due, and that it was paid at the registry office at Cossipore. The affidavit of the gomasta, made at the time of presenting the plaint, states that the plaintiff knew nothing of the transaction and that the gomasta was the only party who had a hand in the transaction. There is no doubt that the money was paid in Calcutta. I am prepared to hold that a money-decree can be made.