Mahaveer Singh Tomar (Dr.) Vs. Marmagh Singh Sisodia and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - 6. the learned trial court failed to consider the nature of transaction, the effect and import of god bharai ceremony which makes the transaction complete so far as the offer and acceptance in between the parties is concerned.ordershacheendra dwivedi, j.1. in this appeal, the order passed by the learned eighth additional judge to the court of district judge, gwalior, on 26-9-1994 in civil suit no. 76/94 thereby directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff/appellant for its presentation before the proper court holding that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, is challenged.2. the suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents on the allegations that for marrying his daughter, the appellant had a few rounds of talks with respondents 1 and 2 and the plaintiff liking the boy, i.e. respondent no. 1, had performed the bar rukai (booking the boy for marriage) ceremony at datia and thereafter respondents perform god bharai (acceptance of girl as bride) ceremony at gwalior. thereafter the date of marriage was also fixed for which the plaintiff had made all arrangements. in that transaction he had sent the lagun (i.e. the intimation of the date of marriage) along with a draft of rs. 70,000/-, a scooter and other articles to respondents/defendants. it is alleged that since respondents 1 and 2 later on started demanding a sum of rs. 1,50,000/- further, and the plaintiff-appellant expressed his inability to pay. thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2 frustrated the contract, but did not return the draft, the other articles and the scooter. since the draft was not encashed by then and it was purchased by the plaintiff from respondent no. 3, the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of money of the document of the draft and was entitled to possess the same in the above circumstances.3. after the pleadings of the parties were completed, the learned trial court had framed issues and decided the issues about the court-fees and the court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the plaintiff.4. at first, it is to be considered whether the court below under the impugned order, while holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, could have decided the issue relating to the court fees. obviously, when the court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it could not embark upon any other question involved in the cases. it ought to have stopped at the point, when it held that no jurisdiction was vested in it to try the suit and had ordered the return of plaint to the plaintiff/appellant. thereafter entering into any discussion with regard to any other issue was not permissible for it and the decision on any other question was also beyond its jurisdiction.5. from the averments made in the plaint, the provisions of section 20, civil procedure code in relation to the place, of filing the suit and the court's jurisdiction to try the same would be attracted. under clause (c) of section 20, civil procedure code, a suit can be filed at the place where even a part of the cause of action arises. the cause of action is a bundle of facts depending upon the nature of transaction. in a marriage transaction in this part of india, there are rounds of talks held between the parties. the bar rukai is the offer, indicative of the intimation from the bride's side that they have approved the groom. the ceremony of god bharai is indicative of the approval and acceptance of girl as bride by the groom and his relations. it is under the same transaction of marriage, the lagun is sent as a social custom, with some articles, intimating the date of marriage.6. the learned trial court failed to consider the nature of transaction, the effect and import of god bharai ceremony which makes the transaction complete so far as the offer and acceptance in between the parties is concerned. the god bharai ceremony was admittedly held at gwalior and, therefore, the contract had assumed its complete shape at gwalior. since the part of cause of action arose at gwalior, the gwalior court is held to have jurisdiction to try the suit.7. for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. the suit shall be tried by the court below in accordance with law. however, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.

1. In this appeal, the order passed by the learned Eighth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, on 26-9-1994 in Civil Suit No. 76/94 thereby directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff/appellant for its presentation before the proper Court holding that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, is challenged.

2. The suit is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents on the allegations that for marrying his daughter, the appellant had a few rounds of talks with respondents 1 and 2 and the plaintiff liking the boy, i.e. respondent No. 1, had performed the bar Rukai (booking the boy for marriage) ceremony at Datia and thereafter respondents perform god Bharai (acceptance of girl as bride) ceremony at Gwalior. Thereafter the date of marriage was also fixed for which the plaintiff had made all arrangements. In that transaction he had sent the lagun (i.e. the intimation of the date of marriage) along with a draft of Rs. 70,000/-, a scooter and other articles to respondents/defendants. It is alleged that since respondents 1 and 2 later on started demanding a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- further, and the plaintiff-appellant expressed his inability to pay. Thereupon, the respondents 1 and 2 frustrated the contract, but did not return the draft, the other articles and the scooter. Since the draft was not encashed by then and it was purchased by the plaintiff from respondent No. 3, the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of money of the document of the draft and was entitled to possess the same in the above circumstances.

3. After the pleadings of the parties were completed, the learned trial Court had framed issues and decided the issues about the Court-fees and the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the plaintiff.

4. At first, it is to be considered whether the Court below under the impugned order, while holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, could have decided the issue relating to the Court fees. Obviously, when the Court found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it could not embark upon any other question involved in the cases. It ought to have stopped at the point, when it held that no jurisdiction was vested in it to try the suit and had ordered the return of plaint to the plaintiff/appellant. Thereafter entering into any discussion with regard to any other issue was not permissible for it and the decision on any other question was also beyond its jurisdiction.

5. From the averments made in the plaint, the provisions of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code in relation to the place, of filing the suit and the Court's jurisdiction to try the same would be attracted. Under clause (c) of Section 20, Civil Procedure Code, a suit can be filed at the place where even a part of the cause of action arises. The cause of action is a bundle of facts depending upon the nature of transaction. In a marriage transaction in this part of India, there are rounds of talks held between the parties. The bar Rukai is the offer, indicative of the intimation from the bride's side that they have approved the groom. The ceremony of god bharai is indicative of the approval and acceptance of girl as bride by the groom and his relations. It is under the same transaction of marriage, the lagun is sent as a social custom, with some articles, intimating the date of marriage.

6. The learned trial Court failed to consider the nature of transaction, the effect and import of god bharai ceremony which makes the transaction complete so far as the offer and acceptance in between the parties is concerned. The god bharai ceremony was admittedly held at Gwalior and, therefore, the contract had assumed its complete shape at Gwalior. Since the part of cause of action arose at Gwalior, the Gwalior Court is held to have jurisdiction to try the suit.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The suit shall be tried by the Court below in accordance with law. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.