The central legal point established in the judgment is the change in jurisdiction and executability of a decree based on the citizenship of the respondent and the operation of the Constitution of India.

1. The Petitioner before this Court is a trader doing business within the jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court at Tellicherry in the Province (State) of Madras. The respondent is also a trader residing and doing business in Trichur Cochin State. The respondent purchased certain articles from the petitioner at Tellicherry on credit. The petitioner filed Small Cause No. 344 of 1948 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tellicherry for the balance due to him from the respondent. The respondent did not appear at the hearing and the decree passed against him was ex parte. That decree was transferred to the District Munsiff's Court, Trichur for execution. The respondent objected to the execution and the Court passed the following order.

"Heard. This being a decree of foreign Court I don't think the execution can be allowed. Objections upheld. Dismissed. 12.7.1950".

2. This is the order which is sought to be revised. At the time that the decree was passed, the respondent was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court that passed it, having been a non-resident foreigner, and not having submitted himself to that Court's jurisdiction. The Court, however could entertain the suit and pass the decree as the cause of action for the suit arose within its jurisdiction. The decree was therefore good for internal purposes, though not for international purposes, that is to say, it could be executed within the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it as also any where within the jurisdiction of the Dominion of India against any property of the judgment-debtor or even against the judgment-debtor personally if such execution be available within the territory of the Dominion of India. It could not, however, have been executed outside the Dominion of India by proceeding against the person or property of the judgment-debtor. There was an agreement between the Government of India and the Cochin State for reciprocal execution of decrees. Had the respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court at Tellichery, that is, had he appeared and contested the suit and had there been a decree after contest, it could have been transferred to the Court at Trichur where the respondent was residing and executed against him personally or against his property. This not having happened and the decree having been one passed ex parte against a non-resident foreigner at the time that it was passed, that is, in the year 1948, the decree could not have been executed, against the respondent personally or against his properties, in the Court at Trichur. The order passed by the Court below would have been right had it been passed in the year 1948. The contention raised on behalf of the decree-holder-petitioner is that the change that has been brought about by the Constitution of India enables the execution of the decree against the respondent in the court at Trichur. It is contended that Travancore and Cochin which were independent States, became a single State on account of their integration and that the integrated State of Travancore-Cochin is one of the States specified in Part B of Sch.1 to the Constitution of India and that the consequence of the Constitution of India is that the States of Madras and Cochin which were formerly independent States, became dependent States. Arts.1 and 5 of the Constitution read as follows:

"1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be the states and their territories specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Sch.

The territory of India shall comprise.

the territories of the States;

the territories specified in Part D of Sch. 1; and such other territories as may be acquired.

5. At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and -

(a) who was born in the territory of India; or

(b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or

(c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India fo