The main legal point established in the judgment is that the submission to the Court's jurisdiction by filing a written statement amounts to acceptance of that Court's jurisdiction, and the decision being on the merits of the case and not obtained by fraud, and not sustaining a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in British India.

King, J.

1. The appellant in this case is the holder of a decree obtained in the Court of the District Munsif of Trivandrum against two defendants. The first defendant was married to the appellants daughter and the appellant in filing his suit in Trivandrum alleged that he had furnished the money to pay for the expenses of this marriage. He alleged further that both the first defendant and his elder brother the second defendant had promised to repay that money to him. The first defendant did not contest his plaint in Trivandrum. The second defendant after being first set ex parte had the ex parte order set aside and then filed a written statement in which he attacked the plaintiffs claim in a number of ways one of which was by questioning the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum Court. After filing the written statement however he withdrew from further opposition and the result was that a decree was passed in favour of the present appellant against both the defendants. In 1937 the appellant applied in the Court of the District Munsif of Sattur, Ramnad District, to execute the decree which he had thus obtained in Trivandrum against a joint family property in the hands of the second defendant who is the respondent in this appeal. The respondent resisted this application on the ground that under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure the judgment of the Trivandrum Court could not be executed in British India. The learned District Munsif overruled this objection and ordered execution to proceed, but the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramnad upon appeal set aside the District Munsifs order and dismissed the appellants application. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge.

2. This question has to be decided entirely with reference to the clauses to be found in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No less than four of these clauses are relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent in this appeal. It is stated for him that the decree of the District Munsif of Trivandrum was based upon a judgment pronounced by a Court which had not jurisdiction to deal with the suit, that it was not given on the merits of the case, that it had been obtained by fraud and that it sustained a claim founded upon a breach of the law in force in British India. These four clauses will have to be considered one by one.

3. The first objection raised is that the Trivandrum Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as between the appellant and the respondent because they were residents in British India and the cause of action arose in British India. It is unnecessary however to decide whether the Court was in fact competent to deal with the suit if it is shown that the respondent had submitted to the Courts jurisdiction. It has already been stated that the respondent applied to the Court to set aside the ex parte order and then filed a written statement in which the claim of the plaintiff was attacked on various grounds including that of the jurisdiction of the Court. It has been held in Harris v. Taylor (1915) 2 K.B.D. 580. that the action of a defendant in filing a written statement in Court and attacking the jurisdiction of the Court amounts to submission to that jurisdiction as he is asking the Court to decide a point in controversy between him and the plaintiff. Even therefore without any contest on the other issues in the suit a mere submission of the issue of jurisdiction to the decision of the Court amounts to the acceptance of that Courts jurisdiction within the meaning of Harris v. Taylor (1915) 2 K.B.D. 580. There are no rulings to the contrary in this country. It seems to me therefore that the District Munsif was right in holding that the first clause in Section 13 does not apply to the present case.

4. The second question is whether this decision has been given on the merits of the case. It is argued for the respondent that the decision is an ex parte decision and therefore is not one on the merits of the case. Here