RAJAGOPALA PANDARATHAR Vs. TIRUPATHIA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question argued in this case is one of jurisdiction, and it has been argued ably by Mr. Varadachariar for the appellants and the Advocate-General for the respondents.

(2.) The suit is upon a mortgage and the final decree was passed by the Sub-Court of Tanjore on 23 March, 1917. The execution application with which we are concerned was filed in that Court on 2nd August, 1922. On 1 April, 1923, the taluk where the property is situate was by a Government notification transferred as and from 1 July, 1923, from the local limits of the Sub-Court of Tanjore to the jurisdiction of the District Court of West Tanjore. Notwithstanding this notification, the Sub-Court proceeded with the hearing of the execution application. On 6th July, 1923, objections were taken to the sale proclamation but no objection on the ground of want of jurisdiction was raised. On 14 July, 1923, the Sub-Court made an order in regard to the objections raised. The decree-holder by this time having realised that the District Court of West Tanjore was the proper Court applied to that Court to withdraw to its own file the execution application. The District Court in its turn formally withdrew the application to its file and re-transferred it to the Sub-Court believing that by this process it conferred jurisdiction on the Sub-Court. Alter this order of re-transfer, without any objection being taken to jurisdiction, the Sub-Court made an order directing the sale of the property. On 22nd October, 1923, the decree-holder himself purchased the property for Rs. 41,000, the amount due to him being over Rs. 52,000, and thereupon the defendant, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., applied to the Sub-Court for the setting" aside of the sale and one of the main objections taken was in regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to sell the property. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed this application, and in the present appeal the correctness of his order is attacked.

(3.) I may at the outset observe that though the sale is impeached before us on several grounds, the only point seriously urged is the one relating to jurisdiction.