The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights and liabilities of the parties must be decided according to the applicable law, in this case, French law. The court's decision was influenced by the application of French law in determining the discharge of liability and entitlement to interest.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. These four appeals arise out of separate suits filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. They all raise the same questions; they were heard together and were decided by the Subordinate Judge in one judgment. It will be convenient to adopt the same course here; but we propose to deal with Appeal No. 67 of 1939, in the first instance as our conclusions in that case will govern the decrees to be passed in the other three appeals.

2. Appeal No. 67 of 1939, arises out of O.S. No. 193 of 1936, which was instituted on the 2nd December, 1936. The suit was brought by one Arunachalam Chettiar, who died before the hearing. In consequence the executors of his will were substituted as the plaintiffs, but at a later stage the present appellants, the receivers of Arunachalams estate, were also made plaintiffs, since when they have carried on the litigation. The suit was filed to recover Rs. 46,538-6-9, alleged to be due in respect of a sum deposited on the 8th July, 1930, with the Chettiar firm of N. M. S. Rm. carrying on business at Laijhieu in French Cochin-China. This firm had been formed at Pallathur in this Presidency by the first, second, third and fourth defendants (first, second, third and fourth respondents), and one Alagappa Chettiar, who died in 1931. It was formed for the purpose of carrying on business at Laithieu. On the 19th March, 1934, the deposit was renewed. The period was one of ninety days and the money became payable to the depositor on the 17th June, 1934.

3. In order to carry on business in French Cochin-China, registration of the firm was necessary, and for this purpose the third defendant was declared to be the proprietor. On the 12th March, 1936, the third defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt in Saigon. In their written statement the first and second defendants denied that they were partners in the firm and averred that the third defendant was the sole proprietor of the business. The third defendant admitted that the, deposit had been made, but pleaded his adjudication in bar. The fourth defendant did not appear and the case proceeded against him ex parte. The case against the legal representatives of Alagappa was abandoned in the trial Court.

4. On the 24th August, 1938, the first defendant filed an additional written statement pleading that he had paid $1,10,525 to * the Official Assignee of Saigon. This sum represented the total liabilities of the firm under French law, calculated in dollars. Admittedly the amount included what was due in respect of the deposit in suit, with interest calculated up to the date of the adjudication of the third defendant. The Official Assignee of Saigon had moved the Court for the adjudication of the first and fourth defendants. This application was filed after the adjudication of the third defendant. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the application, but on appeal, the Court of Appeal at Saigon held that the first and fourth defendants were jointly and severally liable "for the debts left by Raman Chettiar as managing partner". At the same time the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that there was no ground for the adjudication of the first and fourth defendants, nor of the firm. As a result" of this judgment, which was delivered on the 31st December, 1937, the first defendant was called upon by the Official Assignee of Saigon to pay the $ 1,10,525 and he took out process to enforce the demand. Consequently the first defendant was compelled to make the payment. It is his case that the payment operated to discharge him from all liability in respect of the deposit.

5. The Subordinate Judge considered (i) that the business carried on at Laithieu in the firm name of N. M. S. Rm. did not belong to the third defendant alone, but was carried on by the first, second, third and fourth defendants and Alagappa in partnership until Alagappas death; (if) that after Alagappas death, the business was certainly continued, but he left undecided t