A Court cannot execute a decree in which the subject matter of the suit or of the application for execution is the property situate entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT - Waikar, J.-This appeal is filed by the original judgment-debtor and it raises a question about the interpretation and import of section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter called 'the Code'). The question arises under the following set of facts:-

2. Shri Shaba Naik (Appellant) obtained a money decree in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1969 against Shri Govind Naik (Respondent No. 3) in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao. On the application of the decree-holder for execution, certain immovable properties situate at Quepem outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Margao Court were attached on 17-7-1969. The Margao Court by its order dated 8-7-1969 had also issued an order prohibiting the judgment-debtor from selling the pro- perty to any one. On 3-9-1969, that is, after the attachment of the pro- perty, it Appeared that the present respondents 1 and 2 (husband and wife) purchased this property from the judgment-debtor the respondent No. 3.

3. Subsequently on 4-1-1973 the Margao Court, on an application filed by the decree-holder, issued a certificate transferring the execution of this decree to the civil Court, Quepem. The Quepem Court then issued a show cause notice to the judgment-debtor but he did not appear. How- ever, on 5-10-1973 the purchasers, that is, the respondents 1 and 2 appeared ¦ before the Quepem Court and filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58 (2) read with Rule 69 of the Code. The decree-holder in reply contended that the property was already attached before the alleged pur- chase and hence the property belonged to the judgment-debtor and was liable to be sold in execution.

4. The Quepem Court held that no right, title and interest in respect of the said property passed to the claimants as the property was already attached in execution and hence rejected the claim of the objectors.

5. An appeal against the said order was then preferred by the respon- dents 1 and 2 and was heard by the learned Single Judge (Ginwala J.) and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the said decision the present Letters Patent Appeal is now filed.

6. Now though the trial Court's decision was founded on the limited issue that the alleged purchase was made by the claimants after attachment of the property, the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor was liable to be sold in execution, the purchasers, that is, respondents 1 and 2 submitted before the learned single Judge that the attachment of the pro- perty by the Margao Court on 17-7-1969 was null and void as that; Court had no jurisdiction to attach the said property which was situate outside its territorial jurisdiction. Being purely a question of law and the material facts being already on record the learned single Judge allowed the argu-ment to be advanced and ultimately it prevailed with him. It may be pointed out that no objection was ever raised when this legal argument was being advanced, though for the first time in the appeal.

7. The learned single Judge relied on the following decisions which laid down a general principle that no Court can execute a decree in which the subject matter of the suit or application for execution is a peoperty situate entirely outside the local limits of its jurisdiction and that the Court passing the decree can execute it only in respect of the properties lying within its territory :- (Vasireddi Srimanthu and others v. Devabhaktuni Venkatappayya and another)1, (Begg. Dunlop and Co. v. Jagannath Marwari)2, (Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju and others)3, (Sreenath Chakravarti and others v. Priyanath Bandopadhya and others)4, (Bhagwati Prasad Bajpai v. Jai Narain Hanuman Das)5, (Maharaj Kishore Khanna v. Raja Ram Singh and another)6 and (Gyarsilal s /o Jagannath v. Shankar Rao and others)7.

8. A contrary view of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported in Tarachand and ethers v. Misrimal and others8 was not accepted by the learned single Judge.

9. Shri Usgaonkar appearing for the appellant again relied upon t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document