P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an admiralty action in this High Court. It raises an intricate but interesting point of Admiralty Jurisdiction. To put. it graphically, the point of construction raised in the suit is how the words "domiciled in England or Wales" appearing in Section 5 Of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 Victoria, Ch. X) can be dovetailed in the topography of India, and when so does, what will be the scope and extent of the meaning of these words. The ancient lumber of admiralty law in India is in need of immediate legislative spring cleaning, so that her citizen of today may be spared in future from the task of solving such problem of Indianising English geography by having to interpret English Statutes.
(2.) Before discussing this point which does not appear to be covered by any decision in India, it is essential to state the accessory facts.
(3.) The suit is instituted by Jayaswal Shipping Company, a registered partnership, against the owners and parties interested in the Steamship "S. S. Leelavati" for, a decree for the sum of Rs. 33,041-15-3p being the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiff by the defendant for supplying necessaries in connection with the operations of the said vessel at the port of Calcutta. It is conceded and admitted by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the defendants, that necessaries were supplied. He, however, does not admit the amount claimed although he admits that the claim is on account of necessaries. Such admission, therefore, is recorded in the proceedings of the suit, because in paragraph 6 of the ailidavit-in-opposition of Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti affirmed on 6-10-1953 there is the allegation that "It does not appear from the said petition that any necessaries were supplied or moneys paid for necessaries in connection with the operation of the said vessel." This admission, therefore, makes it unnecessary to take any evidence on the point whether necessaries were supplied. On the side of the plaintiff also there has been a concession on a point of fact by Mr. D. R. Das, learned counsel for the plaintiff. The admission by the plaintiff is that Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti, the owner of "S. S. Leela-vati", is permanently domiciled in India and is a citizen of the Union of India. That admission is also recorded in the proceedings of this suit. What is admitted in paragraph 3 of the plaintiff's petition is that Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti, the owner of "S. S. Leelavati", carried on and still carries on business under the name and style of "Andhra Steamship Company" at No. 397 T. H. Road, Madras and that such Steamship is regis-tered in the Port of Madras. In the affidavit used by Chinam Suryya Narayan Murti it is said in support of his allegation of permanent domicile in and citizenship of India that he is a voter and he has exercised his right of franchise at the last Election for Parliament as well as for the Madras Legislative Assembly. The admission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the point of Murti's Indian domicile, therefore, makes it unnecessary to take any evidence on this point. I may also state here that neither in the plaint nor in the petition for arrest of the ship was any allegation made by the plaintiff that the defendant was not of Indian domicile. These are all the facts that need be stated for deciding the issue raised in this controversy.;