Judgment :- 1. Defendants in O.S. No. 467 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif, Nagapattinam, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. The respondent herein, plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4613-63 towards balance of business transaction. 2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated hereunder:— The plaintiff was doing paddy business at Tiruvarur Vijayapuram. The defendants in the course of usual business, used to purchase paddy from the plaintiff. Defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the first plaintiff firm. As per the transaction from 16-10-78 to 2-12-78 the defendants have to pay a sum of Rs. 3957-50. As per the business terms, they are entitled to interest at 12 per cent on the said amount. The paddy bags in the said transaction were l oaded at Vijayapuram as requested by the defendants. Since the defendants failed to pay the balance amount, the plaintiff made several attempts for getting early payment and went to the defendants place at Alangudi. As requested by second defendant, the plaintiff has also made an attempt to recover the said amount from the son of the second defendant, who was doing business at Nagarkoil. Since in spite of several demands the defendants failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. 3. Third defendant has filed a written statement, which has been adopted by defendants 1 and 2. It is contended that the District Munsifs Court at Tiruvarur has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. Since all the defendants are residing only at Alangudi, the District Munsifs Court, Pudukottai alone has jurisdiction. No part of transaction took place at Vijayapuram. The defendants requested the plaintiff over phone to send 460 paddy bags at the rate of Rs. 45/- per bag. The plaintiff failed to send fine variety of paddy. In view of moisture in some of the paddy bags, the plaintiff has also agreed to a reduction of Rs. 5/- per bag. Since everything has been settled, the claim made in the present suit is not maintainable. The interest claimed at the rate of 12 percent is also excessive. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder wherein it is stated that the paddy was delivered at Vijayapuram as requested and the defendants agreed to settle the amount only at Vijayapuram. The interest claimed at the rate of 12 percent is also excessive. With these averments they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder wherein it is stated that the paddy was delivered at Vijayapuram as requested and the defendants agreed to settle the amount only at Vijayapuram. The court at Tiruvarur has jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff has also denied the various averments made in the written statement and prayed for a decree as claimed. 5. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and one Murugaiyan and Singaravel were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. They also marked Exs. A-1 to A-21. Third defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and he marked Exs. B-1 to B-8. The learned District Munsif, after framing necessary issues and after holding that the District Munsifs Court at Tiruvarur has jurisdiction to try the suit decreed the suit as prayed for only against defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit filed against third defendant. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants 1 and 2 filed appeal in A.S. No. 80 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Nagapattinam. The lower appellate court, after determining necessary points for consideration, upheld the findings of the trial court and confirmed the decree granted by the trial court except the rate of interest. Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the lower appellate court has reduced the rate of interest from 12 per cent to 6 percent. Except the reduction of rate of interest, the lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, defendants 1 and 2 filed the present Second Appeal before this Court. 7. Miss P.T. Asha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the following points:— (1) In as much as no transaction has taken place at Vijayapuram, the suit filed before the District Munsifs Court, Tiruvarur, has no territorial jurisdiction and the same has not been properly considered by both the courts below: (2) Even as per the evidence of P.W. 3 Accountant examined on the side of the plaintiff to the effect that there was a moisture in 4 or 5 paddy bags, the courts below failed to consider the same while granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. 8. On the other hand, Mr. 8. On the other hand, Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that (1) since paddy bags were loaded only at Vijayapuram as requested by the defendants, the suit filed before the District Munsifs Court, Tiruvarur, has territorial jurisdiction and this aspect was considered in detail by courts below and negatived the said plea of the defendants. (2) On receipt of the goods from Vijayapuram, the defendants did not send any letter or notice or objection pointing out the moisture content in some of the paddy bags, hence according to him, the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. First I shall consider the territorial jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1. One Murugan was examined as P.W. 2 and one Singaravel was examined as P.W. 3. Exs. A-1 to A-21 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Third defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and Exs. B-1 to B-8 were marked in support of the defendants case. It is the definite evidence of P.W. 1 that he was doing business in paddy at Vijayapuram. The defendants are doing partnership business at Alangudi, Pudukottai taluk. The above said facts were admitted by both parties. It is also admitted that defendants used to purchase paddy from plaintiff. Is is also seen from the evidence that between 16-10-78 and 2-12-78 the defendants purchased paddy on many occasions and they have also settled necessary payments to the plaintiff. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that as agent of the defendants he procured paddy at Vijayapuram and sent the same to the defendants through lorry. The defendants have paid necessary transport charges to the lorry owner. As pointed out by me, the fact that the plaintiff was doing business in paddy at Vijayapuram has not been disputed by the defendants. In this respect, it is useful to mention that on the basis of the evidence, both the courts below have held that the abovesaid fact has not been denied by the defendants. As pointed out by me, the fact that the plaintiff was doing business in paddy at Vijayapuram has not been disputed by the defendants. In this respect, it is useful to mention that on the basis of the evidence, both the courts below have held that the abovesaid fact has not been denied by the defendants. In as much as the case of the plaintiff that he has despatched paddy bags as requested by the defendants even at Vijayapuram itself and of the fact that the same has not been disputed by the defendants, as per S. 20, C.P.C., the Tiruvarur Court which has entertained the suit, is competent to dispose of the same. Even though the defendants are doing business only at Alangudi, Pudukottai, it is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that as requested by the defendants, they have loaded required number of paddy bags only at Vijayapuram and the defendants only paid lorry charges at Vijayapuram. In the light of the abovesaid factual position, there is no difficulty in holding that part of the cause of action has arisen at Vijayapuram and the suit filed by the plaintiff before the District Munsifs Court at Tiruvarur is certainly in terms of S. 20(c), C.P.C. Mr. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the respondent has cited a decision reported in Patel Bros . v. Vadilal Kashidas Ltd. (AIR 1959 Madras 227 = (1959 1) M.L.J. 106). It is seen from the said decision that ouster of jurisdiction of a court to which a person is entitled to resort to under Civil Procedure Cede or any other Statute cannot be a matter of presumption, but should be proved by express words of the contract or at least by necessary or inevitable implication. In this case admittedly there is no agreement. However, the oral evidence and the correspondence between the parties prove that part of cause of action arose at Vijayapuram. He has also cited the recent decision of this Court reported in The Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation. Tiruvarur, etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, etc. (1995-2-L.W. 149). The facts in the said decision are almost similar to the facts in the present case. There also there is no written agreement. The “cause of action” is tersely defined in Mullas Code of Civil Procedure. Tiruvarur, etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu, etc. (1995-2-L.W. 149). The facts in the said decision are almost similar to the facts in the present case. There also there is no written agreement. The “cause of action” is tersely defined in Mullas Code of Civil Procedure. “The cause of action” means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court.” In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to that case the plaintiff has right to re lief against the defendant. Here also, the courts below have observed that there is no evidence where the agreement or contract has been arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants, but it is not in dispute that the consignment (paddy bags) was loaded in the lorry only at Vijayapuram, Tiruvarur, which is within the jurisdiction of District Munsif, Tiruvarur. 10. Illustration (a) to S. 20, C.P.C. is as follows:— “Illustration (a). A is a tradesman in Calcutta, B carries on business at Delhi. B, by his agent in Calcutta, buys goods of A and request A to deliver them to the East Indian Railway Company. A delivers the goods accordingly in Calcutta. A may sue D for the price of the goods either in Calcutta, where the cause of action has arisen, or in Delhi, where B carries on business.” If we apply the above principle and illustration (a) to S. 20, to our case it leads to an irresistible inference that the plaintiff who has delivered the paddy bags in the lorry at Vijayapuram, at the request of the defendants, can very well sue the defendants in Tiruvarur. In the light of the settled legal position and of the facts placed by both the parties, I am of the firm view that the District Munsifs Court, Tiruvarur, has territorial jurisdiction and the same has been rightly held by both the courts below. 11. With regard to the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, damages, even though the first defendant has sent a letter under Ex. B-5 dated 2-11-78 there is no mention about the alleged moisture in some of the paddy bags nor request for any reduction of price on this score. 11. With regard to the second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, damages, even though the first defendant has sent a letter under Ex. B-5 dated 2-11-78 there is no mention about the alleged moisture in some of the paddy bags nor request for any reduction of price on this score. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the absence of specific complaint immediately after the receipt of the goods, it is not open to the defendants to contend that the courts below have not considered the moisture contents in some of the bags. 12. I am satisfied that both the courts below in the light of oral and documentary evidence, rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit. As discussed by me earlier, I do not find any substance in both the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Apex Court as well as this court have repeatedly held that even if the finding of the appellate court is entangled or insufficient, it is not possible to interfere with the said finding in the second appeal. It has been always recognised that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence to support a finding of fact is a matter for decision of court of fact and cannot be agitated in Second Appeal. As a matter of fact, I have already held that only on the basis of acceptable evidence, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit. Hence, absolutely there is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.