AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajamannar, C.J.—The view taken by Raghava Rao, J., in the Judgment under appeal is supported by the rulings in Modali Ademma v. Venkata Subbayya, ILR 56 Mad 602: AIR 1933 Mad 627 (A) and Manickam Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar and Another, . Mr. Raman, lor the appellant, contended that the later ruling of a Bench of this Court in M. Arunachalam Iyer alias Vedachalam Iyer Vs. K.N. Lingiah and Brothers, sounds a different note tond that it would support his case. We do not agree With him. In M. Arunachalam Iyer alias Vedachalam Iyer Vs. K.N. Lingiah and Brothers, , the application for execution was filed in the transferee Court on the 12th July 1946, no doubt before the order of transmission was made; but (he actual order of transmission was made on 13th July 1946, within 12 years from the date of the decree. In the present case, however, the order of transfer was made only on 29th October 1948, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree. We see nothing inconsistent between ILR 56 Mad 692: AIR 1933 Mad 627 (A) and M. Arunachalam Iyer alias Vedachalam Iyer Vs. K.N. Lingiah and Brothers, . No authority has been brought to our notice which lays down that even when the order of transmission is passed after the expiry of 12 years, nevertheless an execution petition which happened to be filed within 12 years in the transferee Court but before the order of transfer is made would save the decree-holder from the bar of Section 48, C. P. Code. The appeal is dismissed with costs.