Jackson, J.

1. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brothers judgment and agree that on the question of waiver these appeals must fail. I also think that the learned Judges order can be supported on the authority of Rajagopala Pandarathiar v. Thrupathi Pillai 1926 Mad. 421. The Sub-Judge of Mayavaram forwarded the execution petition and transferred the decree to the District Court of East Tanjore and that Court transferred the petition to the Sub-Court of Negapatam which had territorial jurisdiction over lot 5 but not over lots 3 and 4 which were within the Tiruvarur jurisdiction. In these circumstances was the Sub-Court of Negapatam a Court of "competent jurisdiction" to sell lots 3 and 4 as contemplated in Order 21, Rule 8? Competent jurisdiction is not usually referable to territorial jurisdiction, and there seems to be no reason for making an exception in the matter of executions under Order 21. This point was threshed out in Rajagopala Pandarathiar v. Thrupathi Pillai 1926 Mad. 421 when Mr. Varadachari, urged that if competent jurisdiction did not mean territorial jurisdiction the phrase would be otiose. But Venkatasubba Rao, J., meets that argument on p. 758,