AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Davies, J.—Assuming that the District Munsif who gave the decree should not have entertained the suit so far as it related to an order for the
sale of the land, we are clearly of opinion that the decree was not void inasmuch as the Munsif was competent, as regards the nature and value of
the suit, to exercise jurisdiction and his decree was passed without objection. No objection could therefore have been taken to the validity of that
decree in execution. Accordingly the orders of both the Courts below must be set aside and the application restored to the file and proceeded with
according to law. In the circumstances no order will be made as to costs.
Sujbrahmaniya Ayyar, J.
The proper Court for the institution of the suit in so far as the order for the sale of the mortgaged land, was concerned was, in my opinion, the
Tirupati District Munsif''s Court (Vithalrao v. Vaghoji ILR 17 Bom 570. Nevertheless the decree of the District Munsif''s Court at Nellore, as that
of a Court perfectly competent to try a suit of the nature in question, were the lands within the local limits assigned to that Court, could not be held
to be a nullity, no objection having been taken to the entertainment of the suit by that Court before the decree was passed. Compare Revell v.
Blake ILR 8 C.P. 533 and see also Naro Hari v. Anpurnabai ILR 11 Bom. 160 note at p. 170. The judgment-debtor should not therefore have
been allowed to object to the validity of the decree in the course of its execution.
I therefore agree in the order proposed.