Judgment :- 1. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 64 of 1955 of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Vaikom is the appellant before us. The suit was by the 1st respondent for money due from the 1st defendant and his half-brother. The half-brother was the 2nd defendant in the court below, and is the 2nd respondent in this court. 2. The suit was based on a foreign judgment obtained against the defendants and in the alternative on the promissory note executed by them in connection with an overdraft arrangement with the plaintiff. The foreign judgment was rendered by the Sub Court of Madurai in O.S. No. 29 of 1949 on 24-3-1949. At the relevant time the appellant was a Travancorian resident in the Indian State of Travancore. It is not contended that he submitted to the jurisdiction of the Sub Court of Madurai. 3. The principle behind the enforcement of foreign judgments has not been better stated than by Parke B. in Williams v. Jones (1845-13 M. & W. 628). "Where a court of competent jurisdiction has adjudicated a certain sum to be due from one person to another a legal obligation arises to pay that sum, on which an action of debt to enforce the judgment may be maintained. It is in this way that the judgments of foreign and colonial courts are supported and enforced." As pointed out in 1954 K.L.T. 138 a foreign court in actions in personam can be considered as a court of competent jurisdiction only under specified circumstances. The judgment summarised those circumstances - in the words of Dicey - as follows: "First Case: Where at the time of the commencement of the action the defendant was resident or present in such country, so as to have the benefit, and be under the protection, of the laws thereof. "Second Case: (Semble) Where the defendant is, at the time of the judgment in the action, a subject or citizen of such country. "Third Case: Where the party objecting to the jurisdiction of the courts of such country has, by his own conduct, submitted to such jurisdiction, i. e., has precluded himself from objecting thereto: (a) by appearing as plaintiff in the action or counter-claiming; or (b) by voluntarily appearing as defendant in such action; or (c) by having expressly or impliedly contracted to submit to the jurisdiction of such courts." 4. None of the circumstances obtains in this case. And we must hold that the decree of the Sub Court of Madurai in O.S. No. 29 of 1949 is a nullity for the purposes of private international law, and that a suit based on the judgment in that case cannot be sustained. 5. The alternative foundation for the suit, as already stated, is the promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 13-2-1946. The suit was instituted only on 12-2-1952. This, however, was sufficient as Art.105 of the Travancore Limitation Act, 1100, provided a period of six years for a suit for a money due on a promissory note from the date of the note concerned. 6. The appellant had a case that he did not execute the promissory note, and that it was brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the 2nd defendant. Issue No. 1 "Whether the plaint pronote was executed by 1st defendant? Was it brought into existence in collusion with the 2nd defendant by the plaintiff bank? - was framed as a result of this contention. 7. The lower court dealt with the issue in Para.4 and 5 of its judgment and said: "The above discussion of the evidence makes it obvious that the 1st defendant also signed the plaint pronote, that there was no fraud or collusion by the plaintiff with the 2nd defendant in regard to the plaint transaction." This finding - we may say quite correctly in the light of the evidence on record - was not disputed before us. 8. S.18 of the Travancore Stamp Act, 1080, provided that all instruments, chargeable with duty and executed by any person in Travancore shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. The real contention of the appellant is that the promissory note was not stamped as required by the section before or at the time of its execution by him at Vaikom, a place within the State of Travancore. 9. S.37 of the Travancore Stamp Act, 1080, provided that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. There are six provisos to the section. There are six provisos to the section. None of them affects the operation of the provision as far as this case is concerned. 10. The 1st defendant categorically stated in Para.6 of his written statement that the promissory note was not duly stamped. He said: The replication filed by the plaintiff did not specifically deal with the contention. It contended itself by a general denial of the allegations in the written statement. 11. The promissory note itself has not been produced in the case. The 1st defendant stated in Para.10 of his written statement: The reply in Para.2 of the replication was that the original documents had been filed in the Sub-Court of Madurai and that "they may be brought down from that court for the purpose of this case." The documents apparently were not "brought down", and all that we have is Ext. L, a certified copy of the promissory note. 12. The lower court does not find that the promissory note was stamped as required by the Travancore Stamp Act, 1080, before of at the time of its execution by the 1st defendant at Vaikom. The only evidence as to such stamping to which our attention has been drawn is the evidence of Pw.1, the ledger clerk of the plaintiff at Vaikom. He says that a Travancore revenue stamp of the value one anna was affixed and that he attested the signature of the 1st defendant in the promissory note. Neither statement is borne out by Ext. L. the certified copy of the promissory note. It speaks of four revenue stamps, and they, as pointed out by the court below, are apparently the British Indian revenue stamps required by the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Ext. L does not disclose any attesting witness to the promissory note. 13. Pw. 2, who was the plaintiffs agent at Vaikom at that time, says that he was aware of the necessity for a Travancore revenue stamp. He is, however, not prepared to say that it was or was not affixed. He takes shelter under a memory that has failed. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint filed before the Sub-Court of Madurai (Ext. II) was that both the defendants signed the promissory note at Madurai. 14. He is, however, not prepared to say that it was or was not affixed. He takes shelter under a memory that has failed. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint filed before the Sub-Court of Madurai (Ext. II) was that both the defendants signed the promissory note at Madurai. 14. Our attention was invited to S.38 of the Travancore Stamp Act, 1080: "Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence or registered, such admission or registration shall not, except as provided in S.63 and 64, be called in question on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped." This section has no application as only Ext. L, a certified copy of the promissory note, and not the original, has been admitted in evidence. 15. In these circumstances we cannot but hold that the promissory note was not stamped in accordance with the provisions of the Travancore Stamp Act, 1080, that S.37 of the Act must prevail, and that no decree can be given on the basis of the promissory note. The appeal has hence to be allowed, and we do so with costs, here and in the court below.