1. The money in question had come into the custody of the Court. So no question of territorial jurisdiction arose so far as the execution of the decree transferred to it by the Principal Sub-Court, Calicut, was concerned. The transfer was clearly made under Section 39(d) of the Civil Procedure Code and the Additional Subordinate Judge has refused to execute it on two grounds:
(1) that the order of transferring Court does not mention why the decree is transferred to it for execution and hence the order of transfer is ultra vires.
(2) that his Court has no territorial jurisdiction and can only hear suits and appeals transferred to it by the District Judge and petitions connected therewith. As regards the first ground the transferee Court cannot question the power of the transferring Court to order the transfer. Vide Paira Mai v. Mehr Chand A.I.R. 1930 Lah. 143. In point of fact the reason for the transfer was perfectly obvious even if it was not stated in so many words in the order.
(2) As regards the second ground, Section 4-A of the Madras Civil Courts Act says that each of the Judges appointed to a Subordinate Court . . . may exercise all or any of the powers conferred by the Act or any other law for the time being in force. The power to execute decrees transferred to it by other Courts is a general power of the Court under the Act and as the money was in its own custody no question of territorial jurisdiction arose.
2. There is nothing to support the Lower Court's view that it had power only to execute decrees transferred to it by the District Court.
3. The Civil Revision Petition must be allowed and the application for rateable distribution E.A. No. 19 of 1926 remanded to be disposed of in the light of the above remarks. The costs of this Civil Revision Petition will abide the final result.