Issue regarding jurisdiction raised.

The first defendant in O. S. No. 185 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli is the appellant herein. The plaintiff-first respondent herein filed the said suit for recovery of Rs. 15,555.30 with subsequent interest on the foot of a foreign judgment.

2. The case of the plaintiff against the appellant (first defendant) and second respondent (second defendant) is as follows: The defendants jointly executed a promissory note dated 1st October, 1962 for Rs. 11,000 to one Mariya Pillai agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 per cent. per annum. The said Mariya Pillai endorsed and delivered the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed on 11th April, 1966 an action against the defendants in Case No. 7384 in the District Court of Nuwara Eliya Holden at Hatton (Ceylon) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,930 due upon the said promissory note. The plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that he was reliably informed that the defendants, with intent to defraud and defeat the plaintiff's claim, were about to transfer their house situate at Sergudi Village, Musiri Taluk (in India) and he therefore prayed for an injunction against such a fraudulent transfer. A notice of injunction and the suit summons, were served on the defendants on 16th April, 1966. The defendants entered their appearance and admitted the execution of the promissory note, but denied their liability thereunder by filing an affidavit to that effect. But, subsequently on 30th June, 1966, both parties agreed that a judgment be entered for a sum of Rs. 15,000 and costs. On 10th July, 1966 the case was finally called and the following orders were passed.

3. “Judgment entered on 30th June, 1966 to stand.” The plaintiff's costs have since been taxed and certified at Rs. 555.30. Hence, the defendants are due to pay to the plaintiff, as per the decree passed by the judgment of the foreign Court, a sum of Rs. 15,555.30. Despite repeated demands, the defendants have not discharged their liability. Subsequent to the service of summons on 16th April, 1966, the defendants appeared to have transferred their house and premises in Sergudi Village by a sham and nominal paper transaction without any real consideration, the vendee therein also having notice and knowledge of the defendants’ intention to defeat the plaintiff's claim. The recitals of the sale deed are utterly false. Perianna Pillai, the alleged transferee, is a friend of the first defendant. Even after the alleged sale, the defendants continue to be in possession of the properties with all the costly furnitures. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to ignore the transfer and proceed against the immovable properties of the defendants lying within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. As the defendants had no sufficient properties in Ceylon, the plaintiff has instituted the suit on the basis of the foreign judgment made on the consent of parties to realise the fruits of the said foreign decree by proceeding against the immovable and other properties belonging to the defendants situate in Sergudi Village.

4. The defendants have filed a common written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff and contending as follows: The suit is not maintainable before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirapalli, as the said Court has no jurisdiction. Both the defendants are residents and citizens of Ceylon, permanently residing at Ragale Estate, Halgraneye, Ceylon for a considerable length of time. The first defendant was employed as a Head Kangani in the above estate and had permanently settled there. The plaintiff instituted an action in case No. 7318 before the District Court at Nuwara Eliya at Hatton for recovery of Rs. 24,162 together with interest and costs. The Court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 24,982.55. The defendants in this case, against whom the said action was instituted, had to make necessary arrangements for payment of the amount due to the credit of case No.