JUDGMENT 1. THIS appeal raises an important point concerning enforcement by execution of a Grosses copie of a mortgage bond, drawn up in the form of a notarial deed, under the law prevailing in the town of Chandernagore, under the French administration. In order to understand the point raised in this appeal, it is necessary for us to look into the history of the transference or cession of the free town of Chandernagore, a French territory, to the Republic of India and also into the history of the substitution of Indian laws in place of French laws, prevailing in the town. The circumstances, under which the town of Chandernagore was ceded by the French Republic to the Indian Republic, appear in the PREAMBLE to the "treaty of Cession of Chandergore" between the two countries, relevant extracts from which we quote below:- "considering that the French Government, in a spirit of friendship and understanding, decided, in accordance with letters exchanged with the Government of India on the 29th June, 1948 and in conformity with the French Constitution, to recognise that the people of the French settlements in India have the right to determine for themselves their destiny and their future status, Considering that after the consultation of the people of the Free town of Chandernagore which took place on the 19th June, 1949, the Government of the French Republic has, at the request of the Government of India, accepted the appointment, as a provisional measure, of an Indian Administrator in this territory on the 2nd May, 1950, considering that the Government of the French Republic and the Government of India have both-agreed that the Franco-Indian Commission contemplated in Article II of the Protocol annexed to the present Treaty should commence its function from the 2nd May, 1950, have decided to conclude a Treaty in order to confirm the cession by the French Republic of the territory of the free town of Chandernagore to the Government of India." 2. ANTICIPATING the necessity for application of certain Indian laws to the town of Chandernagore, consequent upon the appointment of an Indian Administrator in the town, pending its formal cession to India, the Government of India exercised its powers under section 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947 (at one time known as the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act) and, on May 1, 1950, published an Order called the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950, and in Clause 3 of the said Order made the following provision:- "the enactments specified in the Schedule to this Order shall apply to Chandernagore subject to- (a) any amendments to which the enactments are for the time being generally subject in the territories to which they extend; (b) the modification specified in the Schedule to this Order; and (c) the subsequent provisions of this Order." "schedule year Enactments Modification applied. and restrictions 1860 The Indian Penal Code 1887 The Bengal, Agra and assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. 1872 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 1873 The Indian Oaths Act, 1873. 1897 The General Clauses Act, 1897. 1898 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 1908 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 1950 The Preventive Detention Act, 1950." The position, therefore, was that when the Indian Administrator took over the administration of the town of Chandernagore on May 2, 1950, French Laws, if any, corresponding to the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950, became inapplicable and unenforceable and the laws mentioned in the Schedule to the Order aforesaid became applicable in their stead. Also Indian Courts took over administration of justice from the French Courts. 3. THE instruments of ratification of the Treaty of Cession of Chandernagore wore exchanged in Paris on June 9, 1952 and the town of Chandernagore was ceded in full sovereignty to India. Shortly thereafter, on June 30, 1952, the President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 243 of the Constitution, was pleased to promulgate a Regulation, known as the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation, 1952. The provisions of the said Regulation, in so far they are material for the purpose of this appeal, are here in below quoted :- "sec. The provisions of the said Regulation, in so far they are material for the purpose of this appeal, are here in below quoted :- "sec. 2 (c) : 'appointed day' means the 9th day of June, 1952, the date on which the free town of Chandernagore was transferred, in full sovereignty, to India under the Treaty of Cession of Chandernagore;" "sec, 2 (e) 'law means any Act, Ordinance, Regulation, Rule, order or bye-law [including any law (by whatever name called) made by the Government of the French Republic] which immediately before the appointed day, was in force in the free town of Chandernagore;" "sec. 8. Existing Laws to continue-Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Regulation all laws in force in the free town of Chandernagore immediately before the appointed day shall continue in force until repealed ox-amended by a competent Legislature or authority. " sec. 12. "powers of Courts and other authorities for purposes of facilitating the application of Laws:-For the purpose of facilitating the application of any law in Chandernagore, any court or other authority may construe any such law with such alterations, not affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper to adopt it to the matter before the Court or other authority. "with the object of providing for the merger of the ceded town of Chandernagore into the State of West Bengal and for matters connected therewith, the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954, was enacted by the Parliament and came into force on October 2, 1954. 4. THE provisions of the said Act, in so far as the same are material for the determination of this appeal, are here in below quoted: -"sec. 2 (a) : 'appointed day' means the 2nd day of October, 1954;" "sec. 15. SUBORDINATE COURTS.-All courts which immediately before the appointed day are exercising lawful powers, authority and jurisdiction in Chandernagore under the superintendence and control of the High Court at Calcutta shall, until further provision is made by a competent legislature or authority, continue to exercise their respective powers, authority and jurisdiction in Chandernagore under the superintendence and control of that High Court." "sec. 17. EXTENSION OF LAWS TO CHANDERNAGORE.-All laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore." "sec. 18. 17. EXTENSION OF LAWS TO CHANDERNAGORE.-All laws which immediately before the appointed day extend to, or are in force in the State of West Bengal generally shall, as from that day, extend to, or, as the case may be, come into force in Chandernagore." "sec. 18. REPEAL OF CORRESPONDING LAWS AND SAVINGS- (1) Any law in fore a in Chandernagore immediately before the appointed day (hereinafter in this Act referred to as the 'corresponding law') which corresponds to any law referred to in Section 17, whether such corresponding law is in force in Chandernagore by virtue of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950 or by virtue of any notification issued under the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation, 1952 (Reg I of 1952) or otherwise, shall, as from that day, stand repealed in Chandernagore. (2 ). The repeal by sub-section (1) of any corresponding law shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of any such law; or (b) any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any such law; or (c) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any such law; or (d) any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. (3 ). Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), anything done or any action taken (including any appointment or delegation made, notification, order, instruction or direction issued, rule, form, bye-law or scheme framed, certificate, patent, permit or license granted, or registration effected, under such corresponding law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the law as extended to, or in force in, Chandernagore on and from the appointed day and shall continue in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done or any action taken under such law." In the background of the aforesaid history, we propose now to examine the law as to the enforceability of mortgage bonds, prepared under the French Law, "in Indian Courts. A Decret (corresponding in effectiveness to what is known as an Act or a Regulation in India) bearing on the organisation of the profession of a notary in the French Settlements in India was promulgated by the Governor of French Settlements in India, on November 23, 1887. Agreed translation of Articles 2, 11, 22, 26 and 27 of the said Decret is to the following effect :- "art. 2.-Notaries are public officers set up to entertain all deeds and contracts to which the parties should or intend to clothe with the character of authenticity attached to the acts of the public authority, and to, attest their date, to preserve them in deposit, to deliver "grosses" copies and copies of them. Art. 11.-From the date of the promulgation of the present Act (Decret) any notarial deed, in whatever part of the French Settlements in India, shall be drawn up only in French. However, when the parties or one of them shall demand, the deed may be drawn up in the vernacular language which is the most used in each locality. In this case, the translation in French must always be immediately transcribed at the foot of the deed by the notary and signed by him as well as by the interpreter who has attested, if there is occasion. The copies or 'grosses' copies must always be delivered in the two languages. Art. 20.-All notarial deeds make full evidence in Courts of Justice of the agreement that they contain between the contracting parties and their heirs or assigns." 5. THEY are executor in the whole extent of the territory of the Republic and in all French possessions. Art. 22.-The right of delivering 'grosses' copies and copies belongs only to the notary who is possessor of the original deed; nevertheless any notary can deliver copy of the deed which has been deposited as original deed in his hands. Art. 26.-Only 'grosses' copies are delivered in executor form: they are titled and terminated in the same terms as the judgments of courts of justice. Art. 27.-Second gross not delivered unless court orders and the other party is heard. " articles 146 and 545 of the French Civil Procedure Code empowered French Civil Courts to execute Grosse copies of notarial mortgage-bonds. Agreed translation of the said Articles 146 and 545 are here in below quoted :- "art. Art. 27.-Second gross not delivered unless court orders and the other party is heard. " articles 146 and 545 of the French Civil Procedure Code empowered French Civil Courts to execute Grosse copies of notarial mortgage-bonds. Agreed translation of the said Articles 146 and 545 are here in below quoted :- "art. 146.-The copies of judgments "will be entitled and terminated in the name of the King, according to Art. 48 of the Constitutional Charter. [act. (Decret) dated the 12th June, 1947, relating to the executor formula. Art. 1.-The copies of Decrees of High Courts, judgments, orders of Courts of Justice as well as the copies (grosses) and those of contracts and of all the deeds susceptible of forced execution will be entitled as follows: 'french Republic'. 'in the name of the French People'. 'accordingly, the French Republic sends for and orders all nazirs on demand to put the said decree of High Court (or the said judgment, etc.) into execution, the Attorney Generals and Public Prosecutors of Courts of Justice of the First Instance to lend help, all commanders and officers of the public force to lend assistance when they will be legally requisitioned to do it. ' 'in witness whereof the present decree of High Court (Or judgment, etc.) has been signed by. . . . . . . . . . ' 2. The holders of 'grosses' copies or copies of deeds clothed with the formula prescribed previously to the publication of the present Act will be able to put these deeds into execution without causing to add the formula here above stated. '] "art. 545.-No judgment nor a deed would be put into execution if they do not bear the same title as of law, and are not terminated by an order to the officers of courts of justice as it is said in Art. 146." 6. THE French Civil Procedure Cods also contained other procedural provisions for the execution of the mortgage bond, in the same manner as decrees of Civil Courts and a good summary of the different stages of execution known as, "commandment, cahier des charges and summation" will be found in an unreported judgment (1) of this Court delivered by Guha Ray and Sen, JJ. in F. M. A. 153 of 1955 (Sm. Bhanumati. v. Gourmohan), dated August 23, 1955. in F. M. A. 153 of 1955 (Sm. Bhanumati. v. Gourmohan), dated August 23, 1955. With the promulgation of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws)i Order, 1950, the French Civil Procedure Code gave way to the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which became applicable to Chandernagore and the, procedure for enforcement of a Grosses: copie of a mortgage bond, as under the French Code, became unavailable. Such Grosses copies could, thereafter, be enforced only under the Civil Procedure Code as prevailing in India. This is the view expressed by S. R. Das Gupta and Mullick, JJ. in (2) F. M. A. 50 of 1953 (Gourmohan Sett v. Gokul Chandra Chattopadhyaya), decided on January 20, 1955. 7. THE Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950, however, did not make the Decret, dated the 23rd November, 1887, bearing on the organisation of the profession of a notary in French Settlements, ineffective and inapplicable and therefore mortgages could validly be effected under the provisions of that Act and notaries could deliver Grosses copie of bonds, even after the promulgation of the said Order of 1950. The aforesaid Decret was repealed only by section 18 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954. We now propose to turn to the facts of the appeal before us, in the background of what has hereinbefore been stated. 8. BIBHUTI Roy (the respondent No. 1) lent a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to Sourindra Kumar Saha (the appellant) and Samarendra Kumar Saha (the respondent No. 2) and obtained a mortgage of certain properties, which are the subject matter of dispute. The mortgage was effected in accordance with the provisions contained in Articles 2, 11, 20, 22, 26 and 27 of the Decret, dated the 23rd November, 1887, hereinbefore quoted in translation. The Grosses copie, which was delivered to the mortgagee by the notary, did bear the date October 22, 1951. Confounded by the change of law, introduced during the transition period of the cession of the town of Chandernagore to India, the mortgagee respondent No. 1 had instituted a Title Suit on the Grosses copie of the bond, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly. When his confusion was over, he withdrew that suit and filed a tabular statement for execution of the Grosses copie of the notarial mortgage bond, in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly. When his confusion was over, he withdrew that suit and filed a tabular statement for execution of the Grosses copie of the notarial mortgage bond, in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly. That execution case was filed on September, 24, 1956 and was registered as Title Execution Case No. 28 of 1956. In the aforesaid execution case the appellant filed an objection, under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the objection, with which we are concerned in this appeal, is quoted below :- "that the said mortgage bond cannot be enforced otherwise than by a suit and the alleged mortgagee having chosen to file a suit thereon (Title Suit No. 143 of 1954) in this Court, he withdrew the same in order to evade the challenge of your petitioner in the said suit." 9. THE learned Subordinate Judge overruled the objection and the reasons which weighed with him are quoted below :- "the notarial bond in the present case, which is on record, bearing, an endorsement of 'grosse', is executor in force and can under the French Law be executed directly. They also make full evidence in courts of justice of the agreement which they contain. They do not require proof and have the force of a final decree of a Court of law. The rights of the holder of the 'grosse' copy have been saved by Sec. 18 (2) of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 and there being no longer any machinery of the French Courts of Law, the 'grosse' copies can be executed under the procedure laid down in our C. P. Code. The Jdr. cannot go behind the said bond and challenge execution, attestation or passage of consideration. I accordingly overrule the objections". The propriety of the aforesaid order is being disputed in this appeal. 10. MR. Apurbadhan Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellant repeated at the hearing of this appeal the objection that had been taken in the court below and was overruled by that court and also urged an additional ground that the copy that was put to execution was not the Grosses copie of the mortgage bond but only a TIMBRE COPIE and was therefore, not executable. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Mukherjee contended that the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950, made the provisions of the French Civil Procedure Code effective. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Mukherjee contended that the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order 1950, made the provisions of the French Civil Procedure Code effective. Consequently Articles 146 and 545 (hereinbefore quoted in translation), which provided for execution of Grosses copies of mortgage bonds in the same manner as decrees of Civil Courts, went out of the picture and along with it went the procedure for execution by way of Commandment, Cahier des Charges, Summation' etc. After the promulgation of the aforesaid Order, Grosses copies of mortgage-bonds, having similar force as decrees of Court, no longer could be made and if at all made could no longer be executed as decrees. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the copy off the mortgage bond, which was filed along with the execution petition, purporting to be a Grosses copie was only a. TIMBRE COPIE and the words, TIMBRE COPIE were stamped on the face of the document. 11. BOTH the arguments of Mr. Mukherjee are misconceived. The Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950, did certainly make the French procedural law ineffective and inapplicable. But the law under which Grosses copie of mortgages used to be made, namely, the Decret of 1887, bearing on the Organisation of the profession of a notary, was neither repealed nor made ineffective by the said Order. The said Decret was continued by the Chandernagore (Administration) Regulation, 1. 952. and was repealed only on October 2, 1954, by section 18 of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act, 1954 Therefore, there was no difficulty in the way of mortgages being made under the provisions' of the aforesaid Decret of 1887, even after the making of the Chandernagore (Application of Laws) Order, 1950. 'the right and the remedy conferred on the mortgagee, under Grosses copie of the mortgage, was not taken away but was expressly preserved and continued under the provision of section 18 (2) of the Chandernagore (Merger) Act. 12. SUCH right however, could no longer be enforced under the provisions of the French Civil Procedure Code which were at first made ineffective and then repealed, but nevertheless the right could be enforced under the corresponding provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, for execution of an order having the force of a decree. 12. SUCH right however, could no longer be enforced under the provisions of the French Civil Procedure Code which were at first made ineffective and then repealed, but nevertheless the right could be enforced under the corresponding provisions of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, for execution of an order having the force of a decree. This is the view that was expressed by S. R. Das Gupta and Mullick, J J. in the unreported decision (2) in F. M. A. 50 of 1953 (Gourmohan Sett v. Gokul Mohan Chattopadhayaya) and we respectfully agree with that view. We, therefore, overrule the first contention of Mr. Mukherjee. Turning now to the second contention of Mr. Mukherjee, namely, that the copy accompanying the execution petition was not a Grosses copie but only a TIMBRE COPIE, we have to hold that the argument has no basis. Dictionary meaning of TIMBRE COPIE is stamped copy. A Grosses copie is also a stamped copy. The document accompanying the execution petition is prefixed and suffixed in the same manner as provided for under the French law hereinbefore quoted in translation. At the concluding portion of the document (printed at pp. 17 to 20 of the Paper Book) there appears the endorsement that the Grosses copie was made over to the mortgagee. There is nothing to show that the copy accompanying the execution petition was anything but a Grosses copie. This last contention was not raised by Mr. Mukherjee before the Court below. In our opinion there is no basis for this contention and the same is wholly misconceived. We, therefore, overrule also the last contention advanced by Mr. Mukherjee. In the view that we take, we hold that there is no substance in the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.