9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the executable decree. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tenali Subordinate Judge's Court. 3. Applicability of res judicata. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Executable Decree: The appellant contended that there was no valid executable decree against him. The original decree was passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in O.S. No. 63 of 1922. The High Court modified this decree in A.S. No. 405 of 1925, affecting the fourth defendant (the appellant's predecessor-in-title). However, the decree-holder did not obtain a fresh final decree incorporating these modifications or amend the existing final decree to embody them. The court held that the decree of the High Court could not be regarded as a final decree capable of execution. The correct view, supported by the precedent in Gajadhar Singh v. Kishan fivanlal, is that the appellate decree should be deemed the preliminary decree, requiring a final decree under Order 34, Rule 5 before it can be executed. Since the decree-holder did neither, the appellant's contention was deemed valid. 2. Jurisdiction of the Tenali Subordinate Judge's Court: The appellant argued that the Tenali Subordinate Judge's Court lacked jurisdiction to execute the decree. Territorial jurisdiction over the properties in question had transferred from the Bapatla Sub-Court to the Tenali Sub-Court effective from August 1, 1930. However, the transfer lists did not include O.S. No. 63 of 1922, as both preliminary and final decrees had been passed, and no execution proceedings had been initiated. The court acknowledged that the Tenali Sub-Court acquired territorial jurisdiction over the properties but the decree was not formally transferred for execution under Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. This omission was considered an irregularity in the assumption of jurisdiction, not an absolute lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that the objection to jurisdiction was waived as it was not raised at the proper stage. 3. Applicability of Res Judicata: The respondent's advocate argued that the appellant was barred by res judicata from contending that there was no executable decree or that the Tenali Sub-Court lacked jurisdiction. The court noted that in E.P. No. 57 of 1937, the Tenali Sub-Court had issued notice under Order 21, Rule 22 to the appellant, who did not appear and was declared ex parte. The court directed execution to proceed, implying the decree was executable. This order, though ex parte, operated as res judicata, preventing the appellant from raising the same objections in subsequent proceedings. The principle established in cases like Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Palaniappa Chetti and Ramaswami Reddi v. Rangamannar Iyengar was applied, affirming that an order for execution implies the decree is executable and such an order, if unchallenged, becomes final. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was precluded from raising his contentions due to the principle of res judicata. The Tenali Sub-Court's order for execution in E.P. No. 57 of 1937 was not null and void, thus binding on the appellant. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
