Back
Madras High Court
K. VEERASWAMI,RAGHAVAN,SOMASUNDARAM
P.Madhavan Unni - Appellant
Versus
M.Jayapandia Nadar - Respondent
Decided On : 04/01/1972
TRANSFER OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 24 VS SECTION 39, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - JURISDICTION OF TRANSFEREE COURT - SCOPE OF SECTION 24 - COMPETENCY OF TRANSFEREE COURT - INTERPRETATION OF 'COMPETENT TO TRY' - TRANSFER OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS TO SUBORDINATE COURT - POWER OF SUBORDINATE COURT TO PROCEED AGAINST PROPERTIES OUTSIDE ITS JURISDICTION BUT WITHIN JUDICIAL DISTRICT.
Fact of the Case:
A decree-holder obtained a money decree against the judgment-debtor in a suit filed in the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam. The judgment-debtor owned properties in Tirunelveli District. The decree was transferred to the District Court, Tirunelveli, for execution. The decree-holder attached certain properties lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tirunelveli Judicial District. The execution petition was later transferred to the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for further execution. Some of the properties were sold, including some lying beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court. The decree-holder filed another execution petition seeking to sell the remaining properties lying outside the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court. The judgment-debtor filed a suit for a declaration that the execution proceedings in regard to the sale of properties outside the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court were void.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the transfer of the execution proceedings to the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) entitled the Sub-Court to proceed against even those properties which were outside its jurisdiction but within the judicial district of Tirunelveli. The Court found that the transfer under Section 24 conferred wide powers on the superior Courts, namely, the District Court and the High Court, and that the Subordinate Judge had unlimited jurisdiction to execute the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, had jurisdiction to proceed against the properties outside its territorial jurisdiction but within the judicial district of Tirunelveli. 2. Whether the transfer of the execution proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC conferred such jurisdiction on the Sub-Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court distinguished between the powers of the Court to which an execution proceeding has been transferred under Section 39 of the CPC for disposal and those which deal with the power of the superior Court under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the suit or other proceedings to any Court. 2. The Court held that Section 24 of the CPC gives wide powers to the High Court and the District Court to transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceedings pending before it at any stage, for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try and dispose of the same. 3. The Court interpreted the expression 'competent to try' in Section 24 to refer only to pecuniary competence of the transferee Court and not to territorial competence. 4. The Court held that the transfer of the execution proceedings to the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, under Section 24 of the CPC entitled the Sub-Court to proceed against even those properties which were outside its jurisdiction but within the judicial district of Tirunelveli.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower court, and restored the decree of the trial court. The appellant was entitled to his costs in the appeal.
RAGHAVAN, J. :- This Letters Patent Appeal filed with the leave of Venkatadri, J., in the first instance came up for hearing before my Lord, the Chief Justice and myself, and we felt that the judgment of Venkatadri, J. who reversed the judgments and decrees of the Courts below failed to appreciate the distinction between two lines of cases dealing with the power of transfer of a proceeding under Sections 24 and 39, Civil P.C. and the entire case was placed before the Full Bench. The facts of the case are as follows.
2. The appellant obtained a money decree against the respondent in O. S. 73 of 1949 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Ottapalam. The respondent (judgment-debtor) owned properties in Tirunelveli Dt. On the application of the decree-holder the decree was transferred to the District Court, Tirunelveli, for execution. In the District Court, Tirunelveli, he filed E. P. 14 of 1952 and attached certain properties lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tirunelveli Judicial District. Subsequent to the attachment the execution petition was transferred to the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for further execution and the said petition was numbered as E. P. 12 of 1953 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. Plots 2, 3 and 4 were sold on 13-11-1953, But the sale was, however, not confirmed and the properties were proclaimed for sale again on 25-6-1954. But no sale was held under this execution petition and finally the application was dismissed as not pressed on 30-6-1955, keeping alive the attachment for a period of 3 months. Within the period of three months the appellant filed E. P. 145 of 1955 and brought to sale and sold some of the properties already attached, including some of the items lying beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court. For realising the balance due under the decree, the appellant again filed E. P. 99 of 1960 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, and sought the sale of the items lying beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The present suit out of which the above Letters Patent Appeal has arisen is filed for a declaration that the execution proceedings in E. P. 99 of 1960 in regard to the sale of the properties outside the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli is void.
3. The defence to the suit is : (1) that the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli being the transferee Court, the order of transfer having been made by the District Judge, Tirunelveli under Section 24 of the Code, has ample jurisdiction to proceed with the execution and to sell the properties lying within the judicial District of Tirunelveli, though beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli; and (2) that the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Tuticorin, he having never raised the objection in the execution proceedings and that he is incompetent to raise the objections and that the remedy of the plaintiff, if at all, was to have objected to the execution proceedings before the executing Court and that Section 47 precludes the plaintiff from maintaining the suit.
4. The trial Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, to proceed against the properties within the judicial district of Tirunelveli, although beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli. The trial Court dismissed the suit. That decision was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in A. S. 94 of 1962. Second App. No. 1420 of 1963 was preferred against the said judgment and the learned Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the said judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that by reason of the transfer made by the District Judge under Section 24, Civil P. C., the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, is competent to bring to sale the properties lying even beyond its territorial jurisdiction, though they are within the jurisdiction of the Judicia
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
