CHUNILAL OMKARMAL Vs. CHATURBHUJ PIRAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Kemp and the suit arises in this way. On May 14, 1924, the plaintiffs filed a suit against one Shankarrao Gavde to recover a sum of approximately two lacs of rupees. On May 15, the plaintiffs obtained a warrant for attachment before judgment of the moneys due by the defendant in this action (who is and whom we will refer to as "the appellant") to Shankarrao. On May 16, the order for attachment was served on the appellant. On September 3, the plaintiffs obtained a decree against Shankarrao for the amount claimed in their suit. On September 25, the prohibitory order of attachment was continued and leave was given to the plaintiffs to file a suit against the appellant to establish their claim to the moneys attached. On December 2, the present suit was filed accordingly and in their plaint the plaintiffs ask for a declaration (a) that the defendant was indebted to Shankarrao in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 or thereabouts when the warrant of May 15,1924, was served upon the defendant and that the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of the said sum, and (b) that the defendant may be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of two lacs of rupees or such other sum as may be found due by them to the said Shankarrao.

(2.) In his written statement the appellant alleged that he carried on business at Indore and Bombay and that he resided in Indore and was a subject of the Indore State. He then set out certain notices and orders given and made by the authorities of the Indore State and he alleged that Shankarrao had, prior to April 17, 1924, seen the appellant at Indore and agreed that the balance to the credit of Shankarrao in the books of the appellant's Bombay firm should be transferred to the Indore books. The appellant then submitted that the notices and orders of the Indore State therein-before referred to were acts of State such as were sufficient in law to discharge liability of the appellant to Shankarrao. This last allegation was added by way of amendment on November 10, and issue No. 4 was founded on such amendment.

(3.) In the Court below the trial seems to have proceeded very largely upon the allegation of fact made by the appellant that Shankarrao had consented to the moneys owing to him in the booksof the appellant's Bombay shop being transferred to the Indore account. The learned Judge disbelieved the evidence en this point and held that no consent had been given by Shankarrao, and this finding of fact has not been challenged in this Court. It would appear inherently improbable that Shankarrao consented to what would have been the first step in the process of forfeiting his property. In this Court the way the appellant puts his case is this: Shankarrao and the appellant were both subjects of the Indore State; the debt due from the appellant to Shankarrao was locally situate in Indore; the acts of the Indore State authorities amounted to a seizure of this debt on or prior to May 15, 1924, and this Court cannot inquire into the validity of the acts of the Indore State, For the proposition of law on which he relies the appellant cited the cases of Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A. M. Luther V/s. James Sagor & Co. [1921] 3 K.B. 532 and Princess Paley Olga V/s. Weisz [1929] 1 K.B. 718. We think that these cases establish the rule which is very clearly stated by Lord Justice Russell (as he then was) in the latter case. He says (p. 736):- This Court will not inquire into the legality of acts done by a foreign Government against its own subjects in respect of property situate in its own territory.