SITARAM REDDY Vs. CHINNA RAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an execution appeal against the judgment of the Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga, dated 16-10-1950 rejecting the objection of the judgment-debtor that the decree passed by the Judicial Committee was without jurisdiction and void.

(2.) The following facts may be stated for an appreciation of the several contentions raised in this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit in Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga, on the basis that he was an illatom son-in-law, to declare invalid and to set aside the adoption of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant, Tulasamma as also the several transfers made by the said first defendant in favour of defendants 3 and 4. The 2nd and 4th defendants challenged the illatom adoption. The 4th defendant further stated that the transfers were made for consideration. The 1st and 3rd defendants admitted the plaintiffs claim. The Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga, dismissed the suit which was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. Against this judgment and decree, an appeal was filed under Section 4, Clause (a) to the State Judicial Committee which submitted its opinion for allowing the appeal and declaring invalid the adoption of the 2nd defendant and the transfers in favour of defendants 3 and 4. An Arazdasht was submitted to H.E.H. the Nizam on 24-1-1950 and H.E.H. the Nizam by his Firman-Mubarak dated 25-1-1950 accepted the opinion of the Judicial Committee and decreed the suit in plaintiffs favour. This firman was communicated to the Judicial Committee by the Home Department by its letter dated 20-2-1950 and the notice of the judgment was published on 21-2-1950 along with other judgments calling the parties and their advocates to affix their signature after inspection. The case of appellant was 26th in the list. In accordance with the judgment, a decree was prepared and signed by the then Chief Justice late Sri R.S. Naik and the Registrar of the High Court, Sri J. Jurien on 8-3-1950. The 2nd defendant, Seetharam Reddi applied for a copy of the list through which the judgment was published on 17-3-1950. But this request was rejected on 18-3-1950. On 15-4-1950 the decree-holder filed an execution petition No. 36 of 1950 in the Sadar Adalat, Gulbarga. The judgment-debtor filed an application to declare the decree null and void and therefore not executable on the ground that the finnan was antedated after the 26th of January 1950 by making it appear that it was issued on 25-1-1950, that after the Constitution the Nizam had no powers to issue any such firman and that therefore the judgment was without jurisdiction. The application further raised an objection that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Hyderabad also had no power or authority to sign the decree after the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee was abolished.

(3.) On these objections, the trial court framed two issues, viz ; (1) Whether the decree under execution is void, ineffective and unenforceable under the law as contended by the judgment-debtor; and (2) Whether it is necessary to appoint a Receiver to protect the rights of the petitioners on behalf of the judgment-debtor ?