https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278262 A suit validly instituted while Burma remained part of British India was treated as capable of continuing in the Indian court after Burma's separation, even though it involved immovable property in Burma. The issue was one of statutory interpretation, not private international law. The separation alone did not indicate an intention to extinguish pending suits; the right to carry a duly commenced action to its normal termination was treated as vested. The Adaptation Order was not applied to defeat the suit, and the saving provision in the Interpretation Act supported continuance absent clear contrary intention. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 1943 00:00:00 +0630 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278262 A suit validly instituted while Burma remained part of British India was treated as capable of continuing in the Indian court after Burma's separation, even though it involved immovable property in Burma. The issue was one of statutory interpretation, not private international law. The separation alone did not indicate an intention to extinguish pending suits; the right to carry a duly commenced action to its normal termination was treated as vested. The Adaptation Order was not applied to defeat the suit, and the saving provision in the Interpretation Act supported continuance absent clear contrary intention. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Apr 1943 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278262