Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The legal representatives of the deceased defendants in O.S.No.110 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal are the revision petitioners.

2. The suit in O.S.No.110 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal was filed by one Muthukaruppan against Arumuga Chettiar and Chellammal who are the predecessors-in-title of the revision petitioners for specific performance of an agreement of sale and that suit was decreed on 25.9.1984 and the appeal filed against the decree in A.S.No.467 of 1988 was also dismissed as abated, as the appellants viz., defendants in the suit died long back. Thereafter, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/= by Act 1 of 2004 and therefore, the legal representatives of the decree holder filed R.E.P.No.5 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram to execute the decree in O.S.No.110 of 1981 passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal and the revision petitioners were impleaded as respondents in that application and by order dated 18.8.2009, the District Munsif, Rasipuram decided to execute the sale deed as prayed for by the respondents herein and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed by the revision petitioners.

3. Mr.Umapathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though the revision petitioners raised various grounds in the memorandum of grounds of revision, the revision is restricted only to the power of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram to execute the decree passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal in O.S.No.110 of 1981 and having regard to the provisions of section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the absence of any transmission of decree by the Sub Court, Namakkal, the District Munsif, Rasipuram cannot entertain any proceeding and therefore, the order passed by the District Munsif, Rasipuram is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments in VANNACHI,E. ALIAS CHELLAMMAL v. CHELLIAH KONE (1996 (II) CTC 224), SRI KRITHIKA FINANCE v. R.ELANGOVAN (2009(5) CTC 153) and GOWRAMMAL v. LINGAPPA GOWDER (AIR 1968 MADRAS 99) in support of his contention. He further submitted that admittedly, the decree was not transmitted by the Sub Court, Namakkal to the District Munsif, Rasipuram and therefore, in the absence of any transmission of the decree, the District Munsif, Rasipuram has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition.

4. On the other hand, Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after the amendment Act 104 of 1976, an explanation has been added to section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that explanation made it clear that the Transferee Court has also got jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition and therefore, there is no need for transmission by the court which passed the decree. He also relied upon the judgment in FAIZ MOHIDEEN v. M/S.M.S.SREERAMULU CHETTY & CO. (1997 (I) CTC 513, SMT.LAXMI NAGAPPA HEGDE v. THE KARNATAKA BANK LTD., SIRSI AND OTHERS (AIR 1988 KARNATAKA 44) and HAMIR SINGH v. BHAWANI SHANKAR (AIR 1980 RAJASTHAN 134) in support of his contention. He further submitted that after the passing of the decree, by reason of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif upto Rs.1,00,000/= and that of the Sub Court from Rs.1,01,000/= to Rs.5,00,000/=, the suit which was originally filed on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal ceased to have jurisdiction as the value of the suit is only Rs.39,500/= and therefore, the execution petition was filed before the District Munsif, Rasipuram which has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further submitted that the subject matter of the property comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Namakkal and at the time of filing the suit in the year 1981, the District Munsif Court can try suits upto Rs.5000/= and above Rs.5001/=, the jurisdiction was vested only with Sub Court and therefore, the Sub Court, Namakkal which was the jurisdiction court for the subject matter, tried the suit and after passing of the Act, 104 of 1976 enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif to Rs.1,00,000/=, the District Munsif, Rasipuram has got jurisdiction to entertain the execution application and therefore, there is no need for any transfer and the District Munsif, Rasipuram has got every jurisdiction to try the execution petition.

11. Therefore, even as per the judgment of this court reported in AIR 1943 MADRAS 449, the Transferee Court acquires inherent jurisdiction by reason of transfer and if it entertains an execution application, it would, at the worst, be an irregular assumption of jurisdiction and not a total absence of it and if objection to it is not taken at the earliest opportunity, it must be deemed to have been waived and cannot be raised at any later stage of the proceedings.

12. In this case, in the counter filed by the executing party before the District Munsif, Rasipuram, the revision petitioners have not taken the plea of jurisdiction and in the ground of revision also, they have not taken such plea and only in the course of arguments, that plea was taken. Therefore, even as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, even assuming that in the absence of transfer or transmission by the court which passed the decree, the Transferee Court cannot entertain the revision and any cognizance taken by the Transferee Court is only an irregularity which can be waived and in this case, by not raising the plea of jurisdiction in the counter as well as in the grounds of revision, it can be construed that the revision petitioners have waived the plea of jurisdiction.