K C MANAVIKRAMAN Vs. NCANANTHANARAYANA AYYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O.S. No. 6 of 1919, a decree for redemption of a kanom demise was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam on March, 5th, 1920. An execution petition was filed on August, 6th, 1920, for having a re-valuation made of the improvements and for delivery of the property. On the 1 October, 1920, the place, where the mortgaged property was situated, was transferred from the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Subordinate Judge's Court, to that of the Palghat Subordinate Judge's Court. The Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam disposed of the execution petition and in the course of so doing, he ordered on the 16 December, 1920, that there should be a re-valuation of the property, and on the 11 April, 1921, he ordered that a warrant for delivery of the property should be issued, returnable on the 21 June, 1921, and he adjourned the further bearing of the petition for disposal of other matters referred to therein.

(2.) On appeal to the District Judge, an objection was taken for the first time to the jurisdiction 6f the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam to pass an order for delivery of the property, after the executing Court had lost jurisdiction over the locality, where the property was situated. This objection was upheld by the District Judge and the lower Court's order was set aside.

(3.) It is clear from the above dates that both at the time of passing the decree and at the time when the execution petition was presented the Ottapalam Sub-Court had territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. It follows, therefore, that the Ottapalam Court was "the Court which passed the decree," within the definition, in Section 37(d), Civil Procedure Code. Section 38 provides that: a decree may be executed, either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution.