Rajadhyaksha, J.

1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Additional District Judge and First Class Subordinate Judge, Jamkhandi, dismissing the decree-holders darkhast with costs.

2. It appears that one Chunilal Kasturchand Marwadi and another obtained a decree against Dundappa Damappa Navalgi and others in Suit No. 249/1927 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum. Dundappa was a partner in a partnership firm going by the name of Bashetappa Muttur and Ohanbassappa Lakshethi Co. which had business dealings with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought the suit to recover arrears due to them and impleaded, all the partners of the firm, including Dundappa who was defendant 5. Defendants 1 to 4 resided within the local limits of the special jurisdiction of the Belgaum Court. The other defendants, including defendant 5, did not reside within that jurisdiction, and an application was made under Section 20 (b), Civil P. C., to obtain leave of the Court to proceed against them. The cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of the Belgaum Court, Defendant 5 remained absent, and the suit proceeded ex parte against him. Ultimately, a decree was passed on 11-3-1938, in favour of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 12,865 with future interest at six per cent. per annum on Rs. 11,500 and costs against defendants 2 to 5 and against the estate of Murigeppa Muttur in the hands of defendant 7. Dundappa died during the pendency of the suit, and his heir Irappa Damappa Navalgi was brought on record in his place.

3. In execution of the decree, Darkhast No. 418 of 1940 was filed in the Belgaum Court and was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Jamkhandi as defendant 5 resided and had property within the jurisdiction of Jamkhandi Court Jamkhandi was then an independent State in the Deccan with full civil and criminal jurisdiction. Under Section 44, Civil P. C., as then in force in that State, the Rajesaheb of Jamkhandi had passed an order on 15-8-1936 that the decrees of a Civil Court in British India may be executed in the State Courts as if they were decrees passed by the Civil Courts in the Jamkhandi State. In virtue of this order, execution was taken out against Irappa Damappa. The judgment-debtor appeared in answer to this darkhast and filed a written statement, Ex. 11, in which he raised a preliminary contention that as he was a permanent resident of Mudhol and Jamkhandi State and as the decree had been passed ex parte against him by the Belgaum Court, it could not be executed against him by the Jamkhandi Court.

4. The trial Court held that

"as the judgment-debtor was neither a permanent resident within the territorial limits of the Belgaum Court and had not submitted to the jurisdiction of that Court, the question whether the decree of the Belgaum Court was a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction had to be determined by principles of international law."

Accordingly it held that

"the ex parte decree could not be executed by the Jamkhandi Court on the grounds mentioned in Section 13 (a), Civil P.C.."

The learned Judge, therefore, dismissed the darkhast on 10-3-1948. Against that order the decree-holders have come in appeal to this Court as the High Courts jurisdiction with respect to Jamkhandi State "now merged in this Province" vests in this Court.

5. It is not seriously disputed that the decree passed by the Belgaum Court is a perfectly good decree and can be executed against any property of the judgment-debtors anywhere in what was formerly known as British India. Defendant 6 was a non-resident foreigner so far as the Belgaum Court was concerned. But even so, Belgaum Court had jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. The competency of the Court to try this suit had to be determined according to the Municipal law. (See Section 20, Civil P. C.). It was held in Rambhat v. Shankar Baswant, 25 Bom. 528 : (3 Bom L. R. 82) that :

"Under the Civil