MATHRUKOVIL KIZHAKKAPPAT MATATHIL RAMALINGA AIYAR Vs. THAVANUR MATATHIL KRISHNA PATTAR S SON SWAMINATHA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question of international law. It arises out of execution proceedings instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore. The appellant had obtained a decree against the respondent in the District Court of Trichur, which is in the State of Cochin. For the purpose of execution the appellant caused the decree to be transferred to the District Court of Tellicherry. The District Judge, however, sent the decree to the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore in order that he might hear and decide the application for execution. When the application came on for hearing, the respondent challenged the right of the Court to execute the decree. He claimed that he was a British subject with a residence outside the Cochin State and therefore the decree could not be enforced against him in a British Indian Court.

(2.) The respondent is a British subject because he was born in British India, but his parents were subjects of the State of Cochin. The fact that he could claim British nationality under Section 2 (1) (a) of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, does not, however, preclude him from having a dual status. Dual nationality is now well recognised. Section 13 of the Civil P. C. states that a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title, except under certain circumstances which are set out. There is only one exception with which the Court is now concerned and that is, the decree must have been pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Trichur Court could only be a Court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 13 if the respondent were a Cochin subject, or were resident within its jurisdiction when the suit was instituted, or had submitted to its jurisdiction. It is common ground that he was resident in British India at the time of the institution of the suit and that there was no submission to the jurisdiction of the Trichur Court.

(3.) The District Munsif held that the respondent was a Cochin subject and that the appellant was entitled to proceed to execute the decree which he had obtained in Trichur, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry reversed the decision of the District Munsif on the ground that the respondent, although born of Cochin parents, had lost his Cochin nationality by reason of his change of domicile. There can be no doubt that here the Subordinate Judge erred. Domicile is not a factor. See Dicey's "Conflict of Laws" (5 Edition p. 405). Therefore, if the respondent is a Cochin national the fact that he had changed his domicile of origin, if it be a fact, could not affect the right of the Cochin Court to adjudicate on a claim against him.