KAMMELA SOMASEKHARA RAO Vs. KAMMELA SESHAGIRI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether the transferor Court is bound to hear objections as to the excitability of a decree raised by the judgment-debtor before an order for transmission is made.

(2.) The respondent obtained a decree in O. S. No. 203 of 1948 against the appellant for a sum of Rs. 12,000.00 with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from 1-9-1948 till realisation. Having unsuccessfully levied execution till the year 1954, the respondent applied for transmission of the decree to the District Court, Eluru, within whose jurisdiction the properties of the appellant are situated. The appellant opposed the application attacking the validity of the decree. The trial Court transmitted the decree to the District Court, Eluru, with the remark that the appellant would renew his application for the relief sought by him if he was so advised. That order is impeached by the aggrieved judgment-debtor in this appeal.

(3.) It is urged by Sri Sankara Sastry on behalf of the appellant that before the Court which passed the decree could send the decree for execution to another Court, it was obligatory on its part to hear and decide all objections bearing on the executability of the decree, and the transferor Court would not leave that matter to the transferee Court. This argument is founded on some rulings of the Madras High Court, Rajitagiripathi v. K. B. Sankaran, 1924 Mad WN 527: (AIR 1924 Mad 673), Muthuveera-swami v. Annamalai Chettiar, 192G Mad WN 120-(AIR 1926 Mad 411), Arnnachalam Pillai v. Shan-mugham Pillai, 1928 Mad WN 152, Subramanian Chutriar v. Ramanathan Chcttiar, 1929 Mad WN 30: (AIR 1929 Mad 199) and Kondala Rao v Saravayya, 1954-1 Mad LJ 394.