SUKIMAN Vs. KANCHA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in O. C. Suit No. 16 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, West Dinajpur. In that suit, the prayers were, inter alia, as follows:

(2.) The sole-decree, referred to above, was passed in the above Partition Suit No. 104 of 1947 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dinajpur on or about November 22, 1948, and the plaintiffs' main allegation in the present suit was that the said decree had been obtained by fraud by the defendants. In the plaint, there was also an allegation that, in pursuance of the said decree, a Commissioner had been appointed and he had actually come to the disputed properties to make Sahams for the parties and the plaintiffs had come to know of the same on 6-4-1949.

(3.) The present suit was instituted on 13-6-1949, and it has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the preliminary ground that the Court, that is, the Court of the said learned Judge, has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. It appears that the defendan's all reside within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of West Dinajpur and that the lands, in respect of which the impugned sole-decree for partition was passed, also lie within the jurisdiction of the said Court. It appears also that the plaintiffs have further alleged that the cause of action for the present suit arose, at least in part, because of he Commissioner's visit to the lands in suit for making appropriate Sahams in terms of the impugned sole-decree and that, accordingly, the cause of action also arose, at least in part, within the jurisdiction of the West Dinajpur Court.