1. A court to whose jurisdiction the subject-matter of a decree is transferred acquires inherent jurisdiction over the same by reason of such transfer. 2. The absence of notifying a claim to the Collector under the Court of Wards Act can be waived as it is analogous to a notice under Section 80, C. P. C.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the principal questions raised by Mr. Dalip Singh, appearing for the appellant judgment-debtor are twofold as under:--

1. that without obtaining a certificate of transfer, the execution application was filed in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur District, jaipur and since the decree was not passed by that court, it could not have been executed by the said court. 2. that the certificate required under the Court of Wards Act was not filed arid therefore the decree could not have been executed.

( 2 ) IT would be necessary to mention facts in order to appreciate the above points.

( 3 ) BHAWANI Shankar filed an execution application against the Collector, Jaipur as manager of Court of Wards and Nahar Singh, Ganga Singh and Hamir Singh for the recovery of Rupees 25,813/8/6 under a decree dated June 9, 1939 granted by the District Judge, Jaipur (Mahakma Appeal ). This execution application was filed on April 17, 1961. Earlier to it the execution was dismissed on 25th February, 1956. Many objections were raised in this execution application by the judgment-debtors, out of which the objection contained in issues Nos. 2, 5 and 6 were pressed. Issues Nos. 2, 5 and 6 read as under;-2. Whether the execution petition is barred by limitation? 5. Whether execution applications previously filed by the decree-holder were presented in courts having no jurisdiction and what will be its effect? 8. Whether the execution petition is not maintainable without obtaining the certificate of the Court of Wards, regarding the amount of the decree?

( 4 ) IN relation to issues Nos. 2 and 5, which are connected and correlated, it will have to be considered whether on account of the absence of obtaining transfer certificate, the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur is incompetent to execute this decree.

( 5 ) IT may be noted that District Judge, Jaipur was the District Judge for the whole State of Jaipur earlier to 1947. By notification dated llth February, 1947 the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Jaipur was redistributed into three districts, namely, District Judge, Jaipur City one for District of Sawai Jaipur and gangapur and the third for district Jhunjhunu. Now the court of District Judge, jaipur District, Jaipur is for District of Jaipur excluding the city of Jaipur. It would be thus seen that the District Judge, Jaipur District is now having the same jurisdiction which was earlier with District Judge, District of Sawai Jaipur and Gangapur and which was first with District Court of Jaipur alone. Thus the district Judge, Jaipur District, has acquired the same jurisdiction which was with the court granting the decree in the present case on account of transfer of jurisdiction from time to time as mentioned above.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, it cannot be said that there is absence of jurisdiction and the District Judge, Jaipur District is some other Court than the District Judge, jaipur, who gave the decree in the present case. On a historical survey of the development of the courts and their territorial distribution, it is obvious that the same court which granted the decree is executing the decree although at that time it was called as District Court, Jaipur only and now it is called as District court, Jaipur District, That being so, the entire controversy appears to be not of any substance.

( 7 ) IN Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju AIR 1956 SC 87, the Honble Supreme court has held that the court to whose jurisdiction the subject-matter of the decree is transferred acquires inherent Jurisdiction over the same by reason of such transfer, and if it entertains an execution application with reference thereto, it would at the worst be an irregular assumption of jurisdiction and not a total absence of it and if objection to ft is not taken at the earliest opportunity, it must be deemed to have been waived, and cannot be raised at any later stage of the proceedings. In Shah Shivlal Bhogilal v. Shah Vadilal dipchand, AIR 1