Parthasaradhi Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar v. Maka Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar And Others

1. Dealing first with Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1154 of 1914, we observe that the decree has already been sent for execution to the District Court of Kistna.

2. No doubt the decree in Original Suit No. 44 of 1899 was passed by the District Court of Godavari.

3. That Court has now lost jurisdiction, the items of property, with reference to which it had jurisdiction under Section 19 of the CPC, having been transferred to another Court. Subbiah Naiker v. Ramanathan Chettiar(1) dealt only with pending execution proceedings. But the principle stated in it is applicable to proceedings at their institution. With reference to it and Section 37 of the CPC, we must hold that the Godavari District Court has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute; jurisdiction will then lie with the Court which would have jurisdiction to try the suit, in which the decree was passed, if it were not instituted. It is not dispute ??? that the suit properties are distributed between the jurisdictions of at least three Courts of which the Kistna District Court is one each of which would have jurisdiction under S. 19 to try the suit and each of which therefore, might have jurisdiction to execute this decree.

4. We therefore must decide the question on the grounds of convenience. It is no doubt the case that petitioner is interested under the decree only in the Nidadavole Estate, of which he alleges that no part is within the present original jurisdiction of the Kistna District Court though this is not admitted by respondents. But, on the other hand, though the decree of the Privy Council disposes of two suits, there is no reason for regarding it as dealing only with one estate in petitioners's interest. Respondent is also entitled to consideration and will share both in the Nidadavole and Medur Estates. It is conceded that the division of the permanently settled portion of both will have to be made by the Collector of Kistna District. It is further we think material that: (1) the receiver of the estates has in fact been working under the Kistna District Court and (2) the District Judge, whose process runs direct throughout the District, will deal with the matter more conveniently than the Subordinate Judge of either Bezwada or Ellore, to the latter of whom petitioner contends that the decree should be transmitted. It is, moreover advisable in view of the magnitude of the interests involved that an officer of the standing of the District Judge should be entrusted with the case. In these circumstances we do not think that reason has been made out for modification of the order already passed transmitting the decree to the Kistna District Court. We therefore follow the previous order and direct transmission of the decree to that Court at petitioner's instance also. Petitioner will pay respondent's costs, two sets.

5. The decision in Appeal Against Order No. 176 of 1914 follows that in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 1154. The appeal against the order is dismissed with costs; two sets.

S.N/R.K

6. Petition and Appeal dismissed.