Srinivasa Sastri vs Jagathguru Sri Sankarachariar Swamigal at Kumbakonam represented by K.S. Venkatarama Ayyar and Another

Rajamannar, C.J.—The view taken by Raghava Rao, J., in the judgment under appeal is supported by the rulings in Modali Ademma Vs.

Lanka Venkatasubbayya and Another, and Manikam v. Ramaswami (1944) 2 M.LJ. 403. Mr. Raman for 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 and 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 the actual order of

transmission was made on 13th July, 1946, within twelve 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 twelve years from the date of the decree. We see nothing inconsistent between Modali

Ademma Vs. Lanka Venkatasubbayya and Another, 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 twelve years,

nevertheless an execution petition which happened to be filed within twelve years in the transferee Court but before the order of transfer is made

would save the decree-holder from the bar of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is dismissed with costs.