https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288509 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC depended on whether the defendants resided at Palghat or whether any part of the cause of action arose there; neither condition was met. The common law rule that a debtor must seek out the creditor was treated only as an aid to identify the place of performance, not as an inflexible jurisdictional rule in every debtor-creditor dispute. On the facts, the alleged maintenance liability was not contractual and the entrustment was understood to require repayment and redelivery at the family house or the husband's residence, not at the plaintiff's father's house. The Palghat Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction and the plaint had to be returned. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 1941 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:54:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288509 Territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC depended on whether the defendants resided at Palghat or whether any part of the cause of action arose there; neither condition was met. The common law rule that a debtor must seek out the creditor was treated only as an aid to identify the place of performance, not as an inflexible jurisdictional rule in every debtor-creditor dispute. On the facts, the alleged maintenance liability was not contractual and the entrustment was understood to require repayment and redelivery at the family house or the husband's residence, not at the plaintiff's father's house. The Palghat Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction and the plaint had to be returned. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Mar 1941 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288509