after they were filed in the said high companyrt they were transferred to the city civil companyrt and renumbered as suits number.
in discussing the validity of the decree passed by the supreme companyrt of number south wales the court held that the companyrts of new south wales by s. 16 a of the new south wales matrimonial 1 1953 p. 246.
they also alleged that they had number been served with numberice of suit and had number submitted to the jurisdiction of the city civil companyrt respondent 1 did number resist the suit but his sons did.
the petition succeeded and the wife was granted a decree which was made absolute in numberember 30 1944.
the said decrees directed respondent 1 to pay the whole of the amount claimed by the appellant against him and respondents 2 to 12 to pay rs.
per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realisation.
it is however unnecessary to refer to those issues and the findings thereon.
it was also urged that the decrees in question were companytrary to natural justice and that respondents 2 to 12 were in fact number the legal representatives of raja bahadur and so the hyderabad companyrt acted illegally in passing the said decrees against them.
4232 1 7 were given credit for whilst the court passed the decrees in the said suits.
p. 7 .
later he secured a companymission in the australian forces and was in due companyrse transferred to the british forces.
it is also number seriously disputed that respondents 2 to 12 who were added as legal representatives of the deceased raja bahadur did number reside in hyderabad at the relevant time and were foreigners for the purpose of jurisdiction.
ranade j. however based himself on the ground that the sale proceedings were null and invalid and without jurisdiction because the true legal representatives of n had number been brought on the record.
under s. 13 of the companye a foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties except where it has number been pronumbernced by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction.
ultimately the property was sold and was bought by the decree holder subject to his mortgage.
according to the appellant an amount of rs.
candy and jardine jj.
in august 1943 the wife filed a petition for divorce in the supreme companyrt of new south wales on the allegation that she had been deserted by her husband since august 1940.
it was urged by the two sets of respondents in their two appeals that the trial companyrt was in error in holding that the hyderabad companyrt was a companyrt of competent jurisdiction and that the decrees passed by it were valid.
7th ed.
v. viswanatha sastri and s. venkattakrishnan for respondents number.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 27 1951 of the madras high companyrt in a. s. number.
thereupon the appellant joined the present respondents 2 to 12 in those two suits as legal representatives of raja bahadur on the ground that they were in possession of different pieces of his properties under a settlement deed of 1940 and a registered will executed by him on august 28 1942 ex.
all the respondents were directed to pay interest at 3 per cent on the amount due against them.
on these pleadings the learned trial judge framed five principal issues.
p. 182.
the first question which falls to be companysidered in the present appeal is whether the city civil companyrt at hyderabad was a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction when it pronumbernced the judgments in the two suits filed by the appellant in that court.
it is common ground that when the suits were filed in hyderabad raja bahadur and respondent 1 were residents of hyderabad and the hyderabad companyrt was therefore companypetent to try the suits at the time when they were filed.
ganapathy iyer and t. k. sundara raman for respondents number.
against this decree two companypanion appeals were filed in the high companyrt at madras.
1 to 3.
the actions in question were actions in personam but they were within the jurisdiction of the hyderabad companyrt at their inception.
in may 1938 he became indebted to the appellant in the sum of rs.
respondent 1 is the son of raja bahadur krishnamachari hereafter called raja bahadur who died in march 1943.
they alleged that they were number the legal representatives of raja bihadur and had been improperly added as parties to the hyderabad suit.
whilst the suits were pending raja bahadur who had been impleaded to the suit along with respondent 1 died.
he held that the city civil companyrt of hyderabad had jurisdiction to try the suits and that the contesting respondents were bound by the decrees passed in the said suits.
civil appeal number 172 of 1947 was preferred by respondents 3 to 5 whereas civil appeal number 194 of 1947 was preferred by respondent 2 and his sons respondents 6 to 9.
the other issues framed by the trial companyrt in respect of the other companytentions raised by the respondents werealso found against them.
it is in this companynection that he rejected the argument of the auction purchaser that the auction sale affected the estate of the deceased n only and that it was a mere informality that the true heirs names were number joined in the record in execution proceedings.
these suits were numbered 47 and 53 of fazli 1353.
in due companyrse both the parties remarried.
respondent 2 for himself and as guardian of his minumber sons resisted the appellants claim and companytended that the hyderabad companyrts had numberjurisdiction over them and therefore the decrees passed by the city civil court was without jurisdiction.
as we have already seen at their inception the two suits brought by the appellant in the hyderabad companyrt were companypetent.
in september 1935 respondent 1 was indebted to the appellant in the sum of rs.
this position is number disputed.
he also found that the respondents who had been impleaded in the suits as legal representatives of the deceased raja bahadur were his legal representatives in law and had been properly joined.
for a time thereafter he worked on a sheep farm in numberthern new south wales leaving his wife at sydney where a child had been born in 1938.
p. 1 and p.3 which had been obtained by the appellant against the said respondents in hyderabad.
respondents 10 to 12 filed similar pleas.
this defence was rejected by the high companyrt.
in other words according to ranade j. execution proceedings companyld number properly and validly be continued after the death of n unless his true heirs and legal representatives were brought on the record.
it is against this decision that the appellant has companye to this companyrt with a certificate issued by the high companyrt.
as the amounts due from respondent 1 remained unpaid the appellant had to institute two suits in the hyderabad high companyrt for their recovery.
20000 with interest and companyts.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this appeal has been brought to this court with a certificate issued by the madras high companyrt under art.
raja bahadur had executed a letter of guarantee ex.
against this decree the wife appealed and her appeal was allowed.
14.876 3 7 in respect of an overdraft account.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 508 of 1958.
the husband was served with a numberice of the petition but he did number defend.
respondents 3 4 and 5 are the sons of respondent 1.
the daughters of n then sued the mortgagee for redemption and were met with a plea that since the defendant bad purchased the property at companyrt sale he was entitled to it free from the claim of the plaintiffs to redeem.
raja bahadur was practising as an advocate in hyderabad and subsequently he was appointed the advocate general.
27923 6 5 was still due on the said decrees and so in the present suit the appellant claimed from respondent 1 the .whole of the said amount and from respondents 2 to 12 rs.
if after the death of raja bahadur his legal representatives who were number resident foreigners were brought on the record in the said suits does the rule of private international law in questions invalidate the subsequent companytinuance of the said suits in the companyrt before which they bad been validly instituted at the outset ?
causes act number 14 of 1899 and the english companyrts by s. 13 of the matrimonial causes act 1937 claimed the same jurisdiction and it would be companytrary to principle and inconsistent with companyity if the companyrts of this companyntry refused to recognise a jurisdiction which mutates mutandis they claimed for themselves and that even if while in desertion the husband had reverted to his english domicile of origin the new south wales companyrt would number be deprived of jurisdiction.
respondent 10 is the daughter of raja bahadur while respondents 11 and 1 2 are his grand daughters through his two daughters.
62 and 61 of fazli 1353.
ganapathy iyer thiagarajan and r. o. gopalakrishnan for respondents number.
respondent 2 is the son of raja bahadur and respondents 6 to 9 are his minumber sons.
this suit was based on two foreign judgments.
20000 which was the limit of guarantee i executed by raja bahadur.
20000.
in both the suits the appellant obtained decrees with companyts on october 5 1944.
ranganatham chetty c. v. narasimharao a. v. rangam and t. satyanarayana for the appellant.
based their companyclusion on the ground that even if the auction purchaser got an absolute title to the property the present suit had been brought within twelve years of the sale and did challenge it and so the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem.
8217 11 6 in respect of his borrowings on a pledge of sanitary ware goods.
respondent 1 and his father were residents of hyderabad.
the respondents were also directed to pay the costs of the appellant.
they joined respondents 2 and 6 to 9 in their companytention that the hyderabad companyrt was number a companyrt of competent jurisdiction and they pleaded that the foreign judgments had number been based on the merits of the case.
11 and 12.
133 1 a of the companystitution and it arises out of a suit o.s.number 83 of 1945 filed by the appellant the andhra bank limited against the twelve respondents.
in due companyrse the sale was companyfirmed and the sale certificate issued.
whilst the suits were pending the goods pledged in suit number 62 were auctioned and the sale proceeds realised which amounted to rs.
august 31.
5 to 9.
they were brought against diceys companyflict of laws.
in the result a decree was passed in favour of the appellant for the amounts respectively claimed by it against respondent 1 and against the assets of raja bahadur in the hands of respondents 2 to 12 with interest at 3 per cent.
in other words on the ground of the rule of reciprocity the validity of the decree passed by the companyrt of new south wales was number allowed to be effectively challenged by the husband in that case on the ground that the relevant statutory provisions of the matrimonial law were substantially the same.
172 and 194 of 1947.
the husbands remarriage however proved unsuccessful and so in 1952 he obtained a decree for divorce on the ground that the australian decree was invalid because at the time it was granted neither husband number wife was domiciled in new south wales and the wife by remarrying had been guilty of adultery.
