GOWRAMMAL Vs. LINGAPPA GOWDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous second appeal comes before us at the instance of our brother, Venkatadri J.

(2.) THE respondent-decree-holder obtained a money decree on 22-6-1953 against the appellant in O. S. No. 208 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, krishnagiri. It is common ground that in 1959, a certain area was carved out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Krishnagiri Munsif's Court and a separate Court of district Munsif with jurisdiction over that area was established at Hosur. The decree-holder sought to proceed in execution of the decree by attachment of an amount lying to the credit of the judgment-debtor in the Estates Abolition Tribunal court, Salem. This petition was rejected on the ground that the Court which passed the decree. District Munsif's Court, Krishnagiri, had not transmitted the decree to the Court of the District Munsif of Hosur, wherein it was sought to be executed. The decree-holder appealed. The learned Additional District Judge, relying upon the decision of the Supreme court in Ramanna v. Nallappa Raju, 69 Mad LW 875 = (AIR 1958 SC 87), thought that the District Munsif's Court, Hosur, should be considered to be the Court which passed the decree, and in that view, set aside the order of the lower Court and held the execution petition filed by the decree-holder in the District Munsif's Court, hosur, to be maintainable and directed its disposal on merits. It may be mentioned here that on behalf of the decree-holder, it was also urged before the lower appellate Court that on a prior occasion, an execution petition had been filed in the District Munsif's Court, Hosur, to the maintainability of which no objection was taken by the judgment-debtor, and that the judgment-debtor should be deemed to have waived the objection to jurisdiction. But this point was not specifically dealt with by the lower Court.

(3.) THIS second appeal by the judgment-debtor challenges the correctness of the view taken by the lower appellate Court.