Skip to content


Ylazorath Kibulav Syed Ghulam Ghouse Shal Sahib Kadiri Vs. Sunni Lal Agarvala and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.155
AppellantYlazorath Kibulav Syed Ghulam Ghouse Shal Sahib Kadiri
RespondentSunni Lal Agarvala and anr.
Cases Referred and Sidheshwar Pandit v. Harihar Pandit
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 223, 226 - execution--transfer of decree--order of transfer signed by sheristadar as 'by order', validity of--pecuniary limits of district munsif's jurisdiction for purpose of execution. - 1. we think that the order of the district judge is right.2. the district judge says that the order sending the decree to the district munsif, though signed by the sheristadar 'by order,' is the endorsement of the court, that is, the act of the court and civil procedure code, sections, 223 and 225, were, therefore, complied with.3. as to the other objection taken, viz., that the execution was in respect of rs. 2,970-8-9, a sum in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a district munsif in regard to suits, it has been decided by this court in narasayya v. venkata krishnaya 7 m.k 397 and shanmuga pillai v. ramanathan chetty 17 m.k 309, that the jurisdiction of a district munsif in regard to the execution of a decree transferred to him for execution is not subject to any pecuniary limit. no.....
Judgment:

1. We think that the order of the District Judge is right.

2. The District Judge says that the order sending the decree to the District Munsif, though signed by the sheristadar 'by order,' is the endorsement of the Court, that is, the act of the Court and Civil Procedure Code, Sections, 223 and 225, were, therefore, complied with.

3. As to the other objection taken, viz., that the execution was in respect of Rs. 2,970-8-9, a sum in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a District Munsif in regard to suits, it has been decided by this Court in Narasayya v. Venkata Krishnaya 7 M.k 397 and Shanmuga Pillai v. Ramanathan Chetty 17 M.k 309, that the jurisdiction of a District Munsif in regard to the execution of a decree transferred to him for execution is not subject to any pecuniary limit. No doubt a different view is taken in Gokul Kristo Chundar v. Aukil Chunder Chatterjee 16 C.k 457. Durga Charan Majumdar v. Umatara Gupta 16 C.k 465 and Sidheshwar Pandit v. Harihar Pandit 12 B.k 155, but we are bound by the rule of this Court which has been in force for many years.

4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //