K.S. Menon, J.
1. The decree sought to be executed is one passed by the District Munsif's Court, Negapatam. There was subsequently some alteration in the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, by which the mortgaged property came to be within the jurisdiction of Nannilam District Munsif's Court between 3rd January, 1923 and 1st October, 1929. The decree holder presented successive applications to the Nannilam Court, for execution of the decree in 1924, again on 14th September, 1926, 5th August, 1929 and 23rd February, 1931. The present application was filed on 5th August, 1931 in Negapatam Court. The question is whether the applications of 1924, 1926, 1929 and 1931 were to the proper Court. In spite of the fact that it was Nannilam Court which had territorial jurisdiction over the mortgaged property, the Court which passed the decree, namely the Negapatam Court, was the Court to which application for execution should have been presented Vide Subramanya Aiyar v. Swaminatha Chettiar (1928) 28 L.W. 885 and Ramier v. Muthukrishna Aiyar : (1932)62MLJ687 . Whether the Court at Negapatam had power to order sale of the property which were within the jurisdiction of the Nannilam Court or not, the trend of decisions of this Court is that it is the Court which passed the decree to which application for execution has to be presented. In this view, the applications of 1924, 1926, 1929 and 1931 cannot be said to have been presented to the proper Court.
2. It is next contended that as the Judgment-debtor did not raise any objection to jurisdiction when the first application of 1924 was presented, he is precluded from contending that the subsequent applications were not to the proper Court. I do not think that he is barred either on the principle of res judicata or of estoppel from contending that the subsequent applications, of which he had no notice then, were not to the proper Court.
3. The decision of the lower appellate Court is right. This appeal is dismissed with costs.