ITTY PHILIPOSE Vs. GEEVARGHESE IDICHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant 1 is the appellant. He was the judgment debtor in a suit which was disposed of by District Munsiff Chengannoor. It was a suit for redemption. Subsequent to the decree, the property which formed the subject matter of the suit ceased to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court to Chengannoor, because of an order that was made transferring certain territories to the jurisdiction of the Court of Pathanamthitta. The appellate decree was passed by the High Court on 15.12.1106. On 27.7.1118 a petition for executing the decree was presented to the proper Court. A contention was raised on behalf of defendant 1 appellant that it was barred by limitation because the prior execution petition which was presented on 14.12.1112 was not presented to the proper Court. The application of 1112 was filed in the Court which passed the decree, namely, the District Munsiff's Court, Chengannoor, although by that time the subject matter of the suit had ceased to be within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. The question of limitation that was taken on behalf of the judgment debtor was that this application of 1112 was not presented to the proper Court and that it was not properly presented. On both these points, the Court of first instance and the District Judge who heard the appeal from the decision, found against the appellant. It is from the decision of the District Judge that the present second appeal is filed.

(2.) There is no doubt that according to the provisions of the Travancore Civil Procedure Code, an application for execution of a decree can be filed in the Court which passed the decree. As found by both the lower Courts, the application was properly presented because it had complied with all the requirements of law. It seems to have been rejected for non payment of process fee. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the prayer in the execution petition was for delivery of possession of the property which on the date of the application was not within the territorial limits of the District Munsiff's Court of Chengannoor. Therefore he contends that this application cannot save limitation. But in view of the decisions quoted by him reported in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Bahadur ( ILR 39 Mad. 64 ) and Sivaskanda Raju v. Raja of Jeypore ( ILR 50 Mad. 882 ) it cannot be said that the application was not properly presented because the Court that passed the decree has jurisdiction to entertain the application and if the subject matter of the application was brought within the territorial jurisdiction of another district Munsiff the application could be transmitted to that Court for execution by the Court which passed the decree. Under these circumstances the view taken by the Courts below seems to us to be correct and the second appeal must be dismissed with costs.