Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We may also refer to Seton's Judgments and Orders, Vol. I, pages 123-724 and 1523 to 1525; Graveson, the Conflict of Laws (Edn. 2) Ch. 19, page 417 and foil, Wolff, Private International law, Section 250, pages 275-278; sir W. H. Rattigan, Private International Law, Ch. VII p. 219 and foll, (with special reference to India).

13. As has already been remarked Burma ceased to be a reciprocating territory as a result of the cancellation of the notification declaring British Burma to be a reciprocating territory on 21-6-1952 with effect from 4-1-1948 and therefore Section 44-A, Civil P. C. is no longer applicable to the execution of any decree passed by the Burmese Courts. The only other method by which a successful party in a foreign judgment obtained in a Burmese Court 'can realise the fruits of his judgment is to sue upon such a judgment within the period allowed under Article 117, Limitation Act in which case the judgment will be conclusive only if the requisites contained in Sub-clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13, Civil P. C. are fully complied with. If it is proved that any of these conditions is not fulfilled the result will be that the judgment will not be conclusive and there is no merging of the cause of action in the decree. It has been held in Keymer v. Viswanatha Keddi ILR 40 Mad 112: (AIR 1916 PC 121) (C) by the Privy Council that where a defence has been struck off on the failure to answer the interrogatories and a decree has been passed pursuant to the striking off of the defence it is not one given on the merits and cannot, therefore, be executed in the English Courts. The procedure in England under the Reciprocal Arrangements Act is for registration of decrees whereas in Indian Courts it is by application of the - provisions of Section 44-A, Civil P. C. with the concomitant attraction of the provisions of the Limitation Act. A decree of a reciprocating territory has in it all the elements of a decree of an Indian Court with its advantages and If abilities. In these circumstances if E. P. No. 173 of 1944 had been filed subsequent to 4-1-1948 Section 44-A, Civil P. C. cannot apply and the Subordinate Judge, Devakottah, has no jurisdiction to execute the decree for the reason that the reciprocity arrangement had ceased to exist from 4-1-1948. The only remedy, if there be, is to sue upon a foreign judgment under Section 13, Civil P. C, within the period provided under Art: 117, Limitation Act provided the terms of the section are fully satisfied. There is no suit of this kind and we are not concerned with any such question here. The scope and effect to be given to foreign judgments before the enactment of Section 44-A, Civil P. C. had been the subject of various decisions, chief of Which is ILR 40 Mad 112: (AIR 1916 PC 121) (C). The other cases are: Chormal Balchand v. Kasturi-chand Seraogi, ILR 63 Cal 1033 (D); Viswanathan v. Abdul Wajid, 67 Mad LW 147 (E); Panchapakesa lyer v. Hussain Md. Rowther, 66 Mad LJ 209: (AIR 1934 Mad 145) (F); and Rama Shenoi v. Hallagna, ILR 41 Mad 205 : (AIR 1918 Mad 274) (G).