Faridkot
is a known as Native State, the state having an independent civil, criminal,
and financial jurisdiction. The Raja of Faridkot is famous for all that things.
In 1869, Gurudyal Singh was in the Service of the late Raja of Faridkot as his
tressurer for the five years. In 1874 the Gurudyal Singh exited the late Raja's
service, he started to living in independent native state that was Jhind and he
never returned to Faridkot after he left it.
The
suit was merely personal, for money alleged to be due, or recoverable in the
nature of damages, from the Gurudyal Singh. The Raja of Faridkot, obtained in
the Civil Court of that Native State two ex parte judgments in two suits
instituted by him against the Gurudyal Singh, for sums amounting together to
Rs. 76,474 and costs. Those two suits may be treated as one, the appeals to Her
Majesty in Council having been consolidated. Two actions, founded on these
judgments were brought by the Raja against the Gurudyal Singh in the Court of
the Assistant Commissioner of Lahore and were dismissed by that Court, on the
ground that the judgments were pronounced" by the Faridkot Court without
jurisdiction as against the Gurudyal Singh.
When
Gurudyal Singh was served in Jhind with certain processes of the Faridkot
Court, as to which it is unnecessary for their Lordships to determine what the
effect would have been if there had been jurisdiction. He disregarded them and
never appeared in either of the suits instituted by the Raja, or submitted
himself to that jurisdiction. He was under no obligation to do so by reason of
the notice of the suits which he thus received or unless that Court had lawful
jurisdiction over him.
Lordships'
opinion, nothing to take this case out of the general rule that the plaintiff
must sue in the Court to the defendant is subject at the time of suit, to
"lie at the root of all international, and of most domestic, jurisprudence
on this matter." All jurisdiction is properly territorial. Territorial jurisdiction
attaches (special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or
temporarily resident within the territory, while they are within it; but it
does not follow them after they have withdrawn from it, and when they are
living in another independent country. It exists always as to land within the
territory, and it may be exercised over moveable within the territory and in
questions of status or succession governed by domicile, it may exist as to
persons domiciled, or who when living were domiciled, within the territory. As
between different province sovereignty the legislation of the sovereign may
distribute and regulate jurisdiction; but no territorial legislation can give
jurisdiction which any Foreign Court ought to recognize against foreigners who
owe no allegiance or obedience to the Power which so legislates.
On
appeal to the Additional Commissioner of Lahore, the judgments of the first
Court were upheld. The Raja then appealed to the Chief Court of the Punjab,
which differed from both those tribunals, and upheld the jurisdiction of the
Faridkot Court.
The Additional Commissioner of Lahore thought that no action could be brought in Her Majesty's Courts upon a judgment of a Native State, but in this opinion their Lordships do not concur. The judgments of Courts ought to be, regarded in Her Majesty's Courts of British India as foreign judgments. Their Lordships humbly advise Her Majesty to reverse the decrees of the Chief Court of the Punjab, and to restore those of the Additional Commissioner of Lahore. The respondent will pay the costs of the appeals to the Courts below, and of these appeals.
Post a Comment