( 479 )
Present : Pereira J. and De Sampayo A.J.SAIBO v. SENANAYAKE.
253—D. C. Colombo, 35,766.
Jurisdiction—Promissory note—No place of payment mentioned—Whereaction may be maintained.
A promissory note was made at a place beyond the territoriallimits of the jurisdiction of the District Court of Colombo; no place'of payment was mentioned in the note, but at the date of theaction the payee was resident in Colombo.
Held, over-ruling the contention that the note was payable wherethe payee was residing for the time beiftg, that the District Courtof Colombo had no jurisdiction in respect of plaintiff's claim.
T HE facts appear from the judgment.
Bawa, K.C. (with him R. L. Pereira), for the plaintiff, appellant.—>Though the note was made outside the territorial limits of thejurisdiction of the District Court of Colombo, no place of payment.is mentioned in it. The payee was resident within the jurisdictionof the District Court of Colombo at the date of the institution ofthe action. The law relating to promissory notes is the Englishlaw. The question as to what is the place of payment in the caseof a promissory note has to be decided according to the Englishlaw, and not the Soman-Dutch law. If English law applied to thiscase, the plaee of payment is the place where the creditor resides;the debtor must seek the creditor. There are several contractsbundled up in a note: contract as to amount °f money to be paid,place of payment, &e. The English law applies to all thosecontracts.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to sue on the note in the Courtwithin whose jurisdiction he resides.
Counsel cited Latehime v. Jameson,1 Palaniappa Chetty v. De Mel,xKadija Umma v. Hadjiar,3 I. L. R. 12 Cal. 163.
Bartholomeusz, for the respondent, not called upon.
Cur. ado. volt.
September 1, 1914. Pereira J.—
The main question raised in .this case is whether the District Courtof Colombo had jurisdiction in respect °f the plaintiff’s claim. Inview of my decision on this question, it is not necessary that I
> 11913) 16 N. L. R. 286.* (1913) 16 N. L. R. 2*9.
3 (1901) 1 Br. *17.
( 480 😉
1914. should enter into the other questions involved in the issues framed,j The action is one on a promissory note made at Kandalam (a placeapparently beyond the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of theG&anafake District Court of Colombo). It is payable on demand, but theplace of payment is not mentioned in the note. A collateral orsubsequent agreement that the amount of the note should be paidby the defendant in Colombo ha6 been averred by the plaintiff, and.it has been contended that such an agreement could not be provedin law. I need not go into the question involved here, becatf6e theevidence of that agreement has been (rightly I' think) disbelieved bythe-District Judge. The plaintiff, of course, might have broughtthe- action in the Court within the jurisdiction of which the noto wasmade, but in my opinion the District Judge of Colombo had nojurisdiction, because the note was not payable anywhere'within hisjurisdiction. It has been said that at the date of this action theplaintiff was resident in Colombo, and that therefore the note waspayable in Colombo, the argument being that the note was payablewherever the plaintiff happened to be for the time being. I do notthink that the question as to the Court that has jurisdiction can bemade to depend upon such a fluctuating test. No authority hasbefen! cited in support of the contention. The note is not payableat ‘ any- particular place.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Db Sampayo A.J.—I agree.
SAIBO v. SENANAYAKE