RAMIER Vs. MUTHUKRISHNA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this C.M.S.A. arises are these. The respondents before us obtained a final mortgage decree on 20 January, 1916, in the District Munsif's Court of Melur in respect of properties part of which were situated within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Melur and part within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Madura Town. Subsequent to the passing of the decree (in February, 1920) there was a notification by the High Court re-arranging the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Courts in the District the result of which was that the suit properties came within the jurisdiction of a third District Munsif's Court, namely, the District Munsif's Court of Madura Taluk. The present application for execution was filed on 27 July, 1927, in the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Taluk without applying for the transfer of the decree from the Melur Court. The Melur Court has always continued to exist. The District Munsif of the Madura Taluk Court, following the decision of myself and Devadoss, J. in Subramania Aiyar V/s. Swaminatha Chettiar (1928) 28 L.W. 885 held that until the decree was transmitted by the Melur Court the Taluk Court cannot execute the decree.

(2.) He therefore dismissed the application. On appeal the District Judge of Madura refused to follow our decision on the ground that the decision of the Full Bench in Seeni Nadan V/s. Mitlhu- sami Pillai (1919) I.L.R. 42 M. 821 : 37 M.L.J. 284 (F.B.) contained an expression of opinion to the contrary which he preferred and, reversing the decision of the District Munsif, remanded the application to the Lower Court for disposal according to law. The judgment-debtor files this second appeal.

(3.) When this second appeal came on for hearing before our brother Jackson, J., he found not: only that there was some conflict of opinion between the decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Szvaminatha Chettiar (1928) 28 L.W. 885 and the Full Bench judgment in Seeni Nadan v. Muthusami Pillai (1919) I.L.R. 42 M. 821 : 37 M.L.J. 284 (F.B.) but also that there was some other conflict of opinion between our decision in Subramania Aiyar V/s. Swaminathai Chettiar (1928) 28 L.W. 885 and another decision in Sivas-kanda Raju V/s. Raja of Jeypore (1927) I.L.R. SO M. 882 : 52 M.L.J. 605 on a matter intimately connected with the main question. He therefore thought it desirable to refer the case for disposal to a Full Bench.