Execution sale without jurisdiction is a nullity; changed procedural law barred attachment and sale of immovable property in transferred decree execution.

After the U.P. amendment to Section 42 CPC, the transferee court could not execute the transferred decree by attachment and sale of immovable property because execution powers are procedural and must follow the law in force when execution is sought; the decree-holder had no vested substantive right to insist on that mode of execution. Since the Court of Small Causes itself lacked power to authorise such a sale, the Munsif's court acquired none on transfer, and the sale of immovable property was without jurisdiction and void. A sale made wholly without jurisdiction is a nullity, so the objection was not barred by Section 47 CPC and could be raised whenever relied upon.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the U.P. amendment to Section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the transferee court could execute the transferred decree by attachment and sale of immovable property, and whether the decree-holder had a vested substantive right saved by Section 3 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954. (ii) Whether the challenge to the auction sale was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether, after the U.P. amendment to Section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the transferee court could execute the transferred decree by attachment and sale of immovable property, and whether the decree-holder had a vested substantive right saved by Section 3 of the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1954.

Analysis: The power to seek transfer of a decree under Section 39(1)(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be procedural, not an indefeasible substantive right. The modes of execution under Section 51 were likewise procedural, and execution had to be pursued according to the law in force when execution was sought. After the U.P. amendment, the transferee court's powers became co-terminus with those of the transferor court. Since the Court of Small Causes itself could not authorize sale of immovable property in execution, the Munsif's court acquired no such power on transfer. The sale of immovable property was therefore without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sale was accepted in substance on this issue, and the sale was held void and a nullity.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the auction sale was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: A sale wholly without jurisdiction is not a mere irregularity or voidable transaction. Such a nullity does not require setting aside and can be questioned whenever relied upon. Once the sale was found to be void, the objection based on Section 47 could not survive.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 47 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The execution sale was invalid for want of jurisdiction, the alternative procedural bar failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree-holder has no vested substantive right to insist on a particular mode of execution where the governing procedural law has changed, and an execution sale made by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity that can be challenged without prior setting aside.

---