HARILAL PANNALAL SARDA Vs. VISHNU RAMCHANDRA KALLOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Divatia, and it raises an interesting question of law.

(2.) ON February 1, 1932, a mortgage decree was passed in favour of one Hari Narayan against the respondents. The decree directed payment to the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 13,000 by certain instalments, and then provided: In case defendants fail to pay any two instalments, plaintiff do recover the whole of the amount by getting the below-mentioned mortgaged properties sold.

(3.) IN my opinion the general rule is well established that Courts in England or British INdia will recognize a process of universal distribution of a person's moveable property under the law of a foreign country. That principle was recognized by the House of Lords in Galbraith v. Grimshaw [1910] A.C. 508. and adopted by the Privy Council in Anantapadmanabhaswami v. Official Receiver, Secunderabad (1933) 35 Bom. L.R. 747, P.C. It is clear that no Court will recognize the transfer of immoveable property situate within its own jurisdiction by the operation of a foreign system of law. The title to immoveable property is always governed by the lex loci.