Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Ramesam, J.
Subramanya Ayyar
Versus
Swaminatha Chettiar And Anr.
Decided On : 17 February, 1928
EXECUTION OF DECREE - JURISDICTION - COURT WHICH PASSED THE DECREE - TRANSFER OF TERRITORY - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO WHICH THE TERRITORY IS TRANSFERRED - SECTION 37, 38, 150, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was instituted in the Sub-Court of Negapatam and a preliminary decree was passed in November 1922 and the final decree on 6th February 1924. Before the final decree was passed Pattukotta taluk was transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Court, Tanjore, in 1923. The decree-holder became an insolvent and the Official Receiver, Tanjore, filed an execution application in the Sub-Court, Tanjore, in 1924, for sale of the mortgaged properties and the sale was stopped as there were no bidders and the petition was dismissed. The Official Receiver applied again in 1925 for execution of the decree and notice was served on the judgment-debtors, except defendant 9 who was dead, and the Subordinate Judge settled the proclamation of sale and fixed the sale to 31st January 1927. Defendant 6, who was the purchaser in Court auction sale of the properties in Schedule A, appeared in January 1927 and raised various objections to the sale of the properties, and defendant 9s legal representative also appeared and raised several contentions The Subordinate Judge overruled the objections of defendant; 6 and ordered sale of the properties. He has preferred this appeal against the order for sale.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Court which passed a decree has jurisdiction to execute it even though it loses the territory from which the suit arose. 2. The expression “court which passed a decree” cannot, therefore, apply to the Tanjore Sub-Court. 3. The Tanjore Sub-Court is neither the Court which passed the decree, nor is it the Court to which the decree was sent for execution, for no application was made to the Negapatam Sub-Court for sanding the decree to the Sub-Court, Tanjore, for execution. 4. The expression “the business of any Court” means not only the business actually pending in any Court, but the business that may arise from the territory which is transferred from one Courts jurisdiction to another Courts jurisdiction and, therefore, when a portion of the territory is transferred from one Court to another, any application which may arise in a suit from that territory could be entertained by the Court to which that territory is transferred. 5. The Sub-Court, Tanjore, would be competent to execute the decree if it was sent to it by the District Court and its jurisdiction could be exercised only after the decree has been sent to it for execution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court which passed a decree has jurisdiction to execute it even though it loses the territory from which the suit arose? 2. Whether the Tanjore Sub-Court is the Court which passed the decree? 3. Whether the Tanjore Sub-Court is the Court to which the decree was sent for execution? 4. Whether the expression “the business of any Court” means not only the business actually pending in any Court, but the business that may arise from the territory which is transferred from one Courts jurisdiction to another Courts jurisdiction? 5. Whether the Sub-Court, Tanjore, would be competent to execute the decree if it was sent to it by the District Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court which passed a decree has jurisdiction to execute it even though it loses the territory from which the suit arose. 2. The expression “court which passed a decree” cannot, therefore, apply to the Tanjore Sub-Court. 3. The Tanjore Sub-Court is neither the Court which passed the decree, nor is it the Court to which the decree was sent for execution, for no application was made to the Negapatam Sub-Court for sanding the decree to the Sub-Court, Tanjore, for execution. 4. The expression “the business of any Court” means not only the business actually pending in any Court, but the business that may arise from the territory which is transferred from one Courts jurisdiction to another Courts jurisdiction and, therefore, when a portion of the territory is transferred from one Court to another, any application which may arise in a suit from that territory could be entertained by the Court to which that territory is transferred. 5. The Sub-Court, Tanjore, would be competent to execute the decree if it was sent to it by the District Court and its jurisdiction could be exercised only after the decree has been sent to it for execution.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed.
Ramesam, J.
1. The facts of this appeal may be stated as follows: One Swaminatha Chettiar brought a suit on the foot of a simple mortgage in O.S. 33 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate-Court of Negapatam and obtained a decree for sale. The properties directed to be sold consisted of items in three schedules. Those in Sch A and Schedule C are situated in Pattukotta taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Those in Schedule B are situated in the Mannargudi taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam. As some of the properties were within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam the suit was rightly instituted there. While the suit was pending: a notification, dated September 1921, was issued by which the district of Tanjore was divided into two districts, East. Tanjore and West Tanjore. The jurisdictions of the Subordinate Courts were, re-arranged, and under this re-arrangement the Mannargudi taluk also came within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Thus, as a result of the notification, all the properties were within the Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore and none within that of the Sub-Court of Negapatam. In spite of this, on the principle that a Court where a suit was originally rightly instituted continues to have jurisdiction over the suit even if the place where the cause of action arises ceases to be situate within the jurisdiction, the Sub-Court of Negapatam tried the suit and passed a preliminary decree in November 1922. In the year 1923 there was a further notification according to which the Pattu-kotta taluk was removed from the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Tanjore and was assigned to that of the District Court of East Tanjore, but Mannargudi continued to be within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Tanjore. On the 6th February 1924 a final decree was passed by the Sub-Court of Negapatam. The validity of the decree is not questioned before us, nor could it be questioned. The execution petition out of which the present appeal arises is E.P. No. 154 of 1926 filed in the Sub-Court of Tanjore by the Official Receiver of Tanjore representing the estate of Swaminatha Chettiar who became an insolvent. Notice was ordered upon this petition.
2. A notice, dated the 14th August 1926, issued to defendant 6 was affixed to the outer door, and another notice, dated the 5th September 1926 for the same defendant, was received by his son. Defendant 6 did not appear when the petition came on for orders. On 3rd December 1926, the petitioners vakil stated that defendant 9 was dead and it was not known whether he left any legal representatives and hence his name might be removed from the record. On 13th December the Court ordered the properties to be sold and fixed the sale for 31st January. Meanwhile, on 2nd January, one Nagammal, alleging that defendant 9 left a legal representative and that she was his guardian, filed E.A. No. 60 of 1927, praying for the dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the proceedings are void or, in the alternative, that item 5 in the first lot of Schedule A, which belonged to defendant 9, should be sold last. On the same day defendant 8 filed E.A. 61 with a similar prayer, the second part of the prayer relating to item 3. On 8th January, the petitioner in E.P. 154. filed E.A. 72 of 1927, praying for bringing the legal representatives of defendant 9 on record and E.A. 73 of 1927 for appointing Nagammal as his guardian. Defendant 6 then filed E.A. 102 of 1927, praying for leave to file his objections to E.P. 154 of 1926. On 31st January 1927, the properties in Schedule C were sold, but the sale of the properties in Schedule A and B was continued from day to day because of the pendency of the abovesaid petitions. Finally, on 14th February, the Subordinate Judge passed an order referring to the various matters pending consideration and stopping the sale, obse
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
