Rama Aiyar died, Lakshmana Aiyar, Supplemental appellant and legal representative of the deceased vs Krishna Patter

We think that Parry and Co. v. Appasami Pillai (1880) M. 407, must be overruled. No authorities are cited in the judgment of the Appellate

Court but the learned Judge who decided the case on the original side referred on the point to The General Steam Navigation Co v. Guillov (1843)

11 M. & W. 877, and to Schibsby v. Westenhoh (1885) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155. The dicta in The General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou (1843) 11

M. & W. 877, on which the learned Judge relied were questioned in Schibsby v. Westenholz (1885) L.R. 6 Q.B. 155 which is rather against the

view taken by him as in that case the question on which the Court of Queen''s Bench decided to express no opinion was ""as to the effect of the

appearance of the defendant, where it is so far not voluntary that he only comes in to try and save some property in the hands of the foreign

tribunal"", rather implying that at any rate, where there was no property in the hands of the foreign tribunal appearance there would amount to

submission. The later English Cases referred to in the Order of Reference and in S. Veeraraghava Aiyar Vs. J.D. Muga Seit, including the recent

decision of the Court of Appeal in Harris v Taylor (1915) 2 K.B. 580, as also Harchand Panaji v. Gulabchand Kanji ILR (1914) B. 34 are clearly

opposed to Parry and Co. v. Appasami Pillai ILR (1880) M. 407 which must be overruled. That is sufficient to dispose of the reference, as the

facts of the present case are identical.