Shaligram vs Daulat Ram

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1961

Decision Date: 30 April 1962

Coram: J.L. Kapur, A.K. Sarkar, K.C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.R. Mudholkar

In this case the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on 30 April 1962, the matter being titled Shaligram versus Daulat Ram. The judgment was authored by Justice J. L. Kapur, and the bench on which the decision was rendered comprised Justices J. L. Kapur, A. K. Sarkar, K. C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar. The citation of the decision appears as 1967 AIR 739 and 1963 SCR (2) 574. The question before the Court concerned the operation of the Foreign Decree‑Execution‑Judgment‑Debtor Act, specifically whether a decree issued by a court in one jurisdiction could be executed in another jurisdiction when the judgment‑debtor had earlier appeared before the former court and had sought leave to defend the suit without expressly contesting the jurisdiction of that court. The factual background recorded that the High Court of Bombay had passed a decree against three defendants who were residents of the former State of Hyderabad. Prior to the decree being passed the appellant, Shaligram, had applied for leave to defend the suit; the High Court conditionally granted that leave on the condition that the appellant deposit a sum of Rs 5,000 within four weeks. The appellant failed to make the deposit and consequently an ex‑parte decree was entered against him for the sum of Rs 52,032‑7‑0, together with costs and future interest at six per cent per annum. The appellant did not file any written statement. The decree was thereafter transferred for execution to the District Judge, Bhir, in the Hyderabad State. The respondent, Daulat Ram, obtained an execution order on 18 June 1954, which the appellant contested on the ground that the decree was a foreign decree because he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. That objection was overruled, leading the appellant to appeal to the Bombay High Court. The High Court, relying on the principle that a party who appears before a foreign court and seeks leave to defend without denying that court’s jurisdiction is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal and upheld the execution order. The Supreme Court further noted, with reference to Shaik Atham Sahib v. Daviud Sahib (1909) I. I. R. 32 Mad. 469, that a decree executed in a territory where the Code of Civil Procedure had become applicable after the transfer of the State could be validly enforced. The appeal before this Court was filed as Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1961, an appeal taken on a certificate under Article 133(1)(e) of the Constitution against the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 24 October 1958. The appellant was the judgment‑debtor and the respondent the decree‑holder. Counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents were present, and the judgment was delivered by Justice Kapur, who affirmed the High Court’s view that the appellant’s earlier participation in the Bombay proceedings amounted to a submission to that court’s jurisdiction, and consequently the decree did not suffer from the defect that would ordinarily affect a foreign decree lacking such submission.

The decree amount was Rs 52,032‑7‑0, and it included costs as well as future interest calculated at six percent per annum. The appellant never filed any written statement in response to the decree. Consequently, the decree was transferred for execution to the District Judge at Bhir, which lay in the Hyderabad States. The respondent proceeded to enforce the decree on 18 June 1954 before the Court of the District Judge at Bhir. The appellant raised an objection to that execution, arguing, among other points, that he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, which he characterised as a foreign court; therefore, he claimed, the decree was a foreign decree and could not be enforced by the Bhir court. The objection was rejected by the executing court. The appellant then appealed against the rejection of his objection to the High Court. On 29 July 1958 the High Court held that the appellant had, in fact, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the executing court. A further appeal under the Letters Patent against that High Court judgment was dismissed in limine on 24 October 1958. The present appeal was filed against that order, and the appellant obtained a certificate of the High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Court noted that a person who complies with the process of a foreign court and applies for leave to defend a suit without challenging the foreign court’s jurisdiction, when the person is not legally compelled to do so, is deemed to have voluntarily submitted to that jurisdiction, as held in Shaikh Atham Sahib v. Davud Sahib (1). Because of that principle, the Court concluded that the decree could not be said to suffer from the defects that would affect a foreign ex‑parte decree where no such submission existed. The order transferring the decree for execution had been made at a time when the Indian Code of Civil Procedure became applicable throughout India, including the former territories of the Hyderabad State. Accordingly, the transfer order was valid and effective, and the decree could be lawfully executed. In the Court’s opinion, the appeal was without merit; consequently, it was dismissed with costs. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the citation to the earlier case was recorded as (1) (1909) T.L.R. 32 Mad. 469.