TMI Blog1935 (12) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Howrah. After reciting her claim, in para. 3 of the plaint, as originally filed, the plaintiff stated that she was residing in Bijpore within the jurisdiction of the Baraset Court, and it is on this fact alone she stated that that Court had jurisdiction to entertain her suit. By an amendment allowed by the Court certain additions were made in para. 3 of the plaint. THE substance of these additions is that the defendant came to Bijpore where the plaintiff was residing with her father, and on a demand being made for the prompt dower the defendant promised at Bijpore to pay up shortly, but he thereafter failed to keep his promise even after repeated demands. THE plaintiff accordingly has stated in her plaint, as finally amended, that the Bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by Markby, J., from the jurist's point of view in Gopee Kisto Gossamee V/s. Nil Comul Banerjee (1874) 22 W R 79, who also came to the same conclusion. Mr. Akram's next contention is that the place of performance must be taken to be Bijpore, the place where the plaintiff is residing, on the principle that when the creditor is residing in the realm the debtor must follow the creditor and pay him, unless there is a different contract between them. For supporting his argument he has cited two cases only, namely, 48; Gokul Dass V/s. Nathu 1926 All 477 and Soniram Jeetmull V/s. R.D. Tata and Co., 1927 P C 156. This argument has to be considered carefully. The facts established are the following: (i) the marriage between the plaintiff an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties, by Parke, B., in Poole V/s. Tunbridge (1837) 2 M W 223, is relied upon. Most of the cases are collected in Fessard V/s. Magnier (1865) 18 CBNS 286, which is very instructive on the subject. ( 3. ) The only limitation to this principle of English law is that the creditor must reside within the realm. Bansilal Abirchand V/s. Ghulam Mahbub, Khan 1925 P C 290. THE question is whether this principle is applicable in India. So far as I am aware the Courts of this country from early times have considered the said principle to be so applicable and there are decisions or observations of Judges of nearly all the High Courts. Biroh, J., recognised the applicability of the said rule in Bengal: Gopee Kisto Gossamee V/s. Nil Comul Banerjee (18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 993. In Soniram Jeetmull V/s. R.D. Tata And Co. 1927 P C 156 Lord Sumner, however, threw great doubts on the observations of Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. And pointed out that in the case, where there is no place of performance fixed by agreement, And the debtor does not apply to the creditor to fix a reasonable place for performance, there would be no place for performance at all And the debtor would be enabled to better his position by himself being in default, that is by omitting to apply to the creditor for fixing the place of performance, where if he had so applied the reasonable certainty is that the place of performance would have been fixed at the creditor's place of residence. Lord Sumner finally said at p. 271 of the report that: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
