GAMARTI VENKATACHELLAM Vs. GAMARTI SITHAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree-holder is the appellant. He brought O.S. No. 4 of 1910 on the file of the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam. The District Court trans-ferred it to the Temporary Subordinate Judge s Court established in that place for disposal. The suit was for partition of immoveable properties, for recovery of a half share therein and for mesne profits. The Temporary Subordinate Judge s Court was established in 1910 at Masulipatam but no local limits were fixed for its jurisdiction, the notification leaving it to the District Judge to fix such local jurisdiction as he thinks fit to do under Section 10 of the Madras Civil Court s Act III of 1873. When the suit was transferred by the District Court, the District Judge had not fixed any such local limits for the Temporary Subordinate Judge s jurisdiction. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit including the relief of mesne profits on the 16th August 1912 and that decree was confirmed on appeal by the High Court.

(2.) The plaintiff put in an execution petition for the attachment of certain immovable properties of the defendant for recovery of the mesne profits so decreed. This application was made on the 5th October 1914. The places where the immoveable properties sought to be attached are situated have not been assigned to the local limits of the Subordinate Judge s jurisdiction even now. The question is whether the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain such an application and to effect attachment of the immovable properties mentioned in that application.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to so attach and on the judgmentdebtor s application, set aside the attachment which had been effected on an order issued ex-parte at the instance of the decree-holder. Hence this appeal.