Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-21-1958
Reported in : AIR1960Kant1; AIR1960Mys1; ILR1959KAR57
..... the learned advocate for the respondent that the execution of the decree is barred by limitation. the learned advocate for the appellant contended that art. 183 of the limitation act is applicable and that there is no bar of limitation. in view of my conclusion that the decree is otherwise inexecutable, it is not ..... countries forming part of the united kingdom.still the laws in both the countries were different and until the passing of the judgment extension act and the foreign judgment reciprocal act, the decrees passed by courts of those countries were governed by the principles of private international law and if the decree was an ..... of india.'in the case of ramalingam v. abdul wajid, air 1950 pc 64, it was held that with the passing of the indian independence act 1947, the maharaja of mysore alone had sovereign powers and it was for him to make such laws as he thought fit for the administration of justice ..... useful to discuss the general principles underlying the validity or otherwise of foreign judgments. the ordinary rule is that a country has exclusive jurisdiction within the limits of its own territory. it cannot lay down rules for the rest of the world. other countries are not bound to recognise its judgments as ..... laws so repealed and also that to execute a decree is not a right conferred on the decree holder. the view of the full bench of the punjab high court in the case of firm radhe sham roshan lal v. kundan lal mohan lal, , is also similar. it was observed in that .....Tag this Judgment!