Rajamannar, C.J.- In this appeal the defendant in Original Suit No. 258 of 1951 is the appellant. The suit was filed by the respondent in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tiruchirapalli, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,500 from the defendant on the basis of a foreign judgment and decree which the respondent admittedly obtained in the District Court of Nuwaraeliya, Holden at Hatton, Ceylon, on the 26th of October, 1948. The suit in the Ceylon Court was filed on a promissory note executed by the father of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 17th of April, 1942, for a sum of Rs. 3,500, payable with interest at 18 percent, per annum. The defendant who is the appellant before us was ex parte in that suit and, according to the procedure obtaining in Ceylon, a decree nisi was passed after taking the evidence of the plaintiff and finally the decree was made absolute after notice of the decree nisi had been served on the defendant and the latter had failed to appear in spite of the notice. In the plaint it was alleged that a decree on the merits had been passed and the defendant had not paid the amount due under that decree. The suit was filed, as already mentioned in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Admittedly, the defendant was a resident of Ceylon. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the cause of action for the suit was alleged to have arisen in the villages of Alathudayanpatti and Alagapuri, Musiri Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District, ‘where the defendant owns and is possessed of properties.'

Several pleas were raised in defence, namely: (1) that the plaint disclosed no cause of action for a suit in the Tiruchirapalli Court because the defendant did not reside nor did he have a permanent dwelling within the jurisdiction of that Court; and the cause of action for the suit did not arise within the jurisdiction of the said Court; it was further alleged that the defendant had no immoveable property in the district of Tiruchirapalli at all ; (2) the judgment of the Ceylonese Court was not on the merits ; and (3) the suit was barred by limitation as the promissory note was dated 17th April, 1942 and the suit was filed in 1951.

On those pleadings several issues were raised of which the following are the most material:

(1) Is the suit in this Court competent ?

(2) Is the suit in time ?

(3) Does the suit on foreign Judgment lie ?

The learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli, who tried the suit found in favour of the plaintiff on all these three issues and the suit was decreed. Hence in this appeal the defendant is the appellant.

Mr. S. Amudhachari, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant first contended that the suit on the foreign judgment was not sustainable because there was no judgment on the merits. The only point he could urge in support of this contention was that the appellant was ex parte in that suit. It is clear, however, that though the judgment and decree of a foreign Court might have been passed ex parte if it was passed on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the decision must be deemed to have been on the merits. It is in evidence that the plaintiff was examined in the Ceylonese Court and he proved his claim and the Court passed a decree in his favour after it was convinced that the claim put forward by him was true and was established. There is no substance, therefore, in this contention.

There is, however, considerable force in the next contention that the Court at Tiruchirapalli had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In our opinion, this contention must prevail. In the plaint the only ground on which it was alleged that the Court of the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction was that the defendant owned and was possessed of properties in two villages within the jurisdiction of that Court. It was averred that the defendant owned and was possessed of these properties at the time of the institution of the suit, because the present tense ‘owns and is possessed of was used. As already me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document