Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
It is the classical formulation of domicile, and it is quoted in the Indian cases. It is also, read honestly, a confession rather than a definition — and saying so is the point of the chapter.
Facts
This course cites the case for Lord Cranworth's formulation and does not set out its facts. It is quoted again in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
Held
By domicile is meant home, the permanent home — and, as the passage is quoted in D.P. Joshi, if you do not understand your permanent home, no illustration drawn from foreign writers will help you.
Reasoning
Step one — see what the sentence does. It does not state a test. It appeals to an idea the reader is expected to possess already, and then refuses to analyse it further.
Step two — see why that is not a failure of the judge. The courts have never produced a test of domicile; they have produced a set of rules about domicile and have then decided each case on its facts. Learn the rules; do not look for a formula.
Step three — the rules that do the work. No person can be without a domicile. No person can have more than one at the same time, at least for the same purpose. An existing domicile is presumed to continue until a new one is proved to have been acquired. The question where a person is domiciled is determined solely by the law of the forum. And the standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard.
Exam use
It opens: Define domicile — quote the formulation, then say at once that it is a description and that the law works through rules.
Explain what the five rules are for. The first two make domicile a complete and exclusive allocation: everybody has one, nobody has two. That is not a description of how people live but a legal necessity, because the apparatus depends on there being exactly one personal law to consult. The third is the evidential engine of nearly every reported case: the burden lies on whoever asserts the change. The fourth is Module 1's rule that the forum's own meaning of a connecting factor prevails. The fifth matters because it was long said that displacing a domicile of origin required something close to the criminal standard.
In a problem question, start with rule three and identify who is asserting what. Half the reported domicile cases are decided on the burden of proof alone.
It does not decide anything about the acquisition of a domicile of choice; for that, Udny v. Udny and Kedar Pandey supply the law.