Judgment :- 1. The respondent obtained a decree for partition of certain properties with mesne profits as per O.S. No. 1205 of 1959 of the Payyoil Munsiff's Court After the passing of the final decree E.A. No. 545 of 1969 was filed by the respondent for transmission of the decree to the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram for the purpose of execution. Thereafter the respondent filed E.P. No. 41 of 1970 which was stayed under Act 11 of 1970 and was finally disposed of as closed as 2-9-1970. E.P.No. 33 of 1971 which was filed thereafter was dismissed on 2111972. After the dismissal E.P. No. 107 of 1973 was filed for realisation of the profits of the property due to the respondent from the appellant The amount claimed under the execution petition was Rs. 5046.44 towards profits and Rs. 101/- towards execution costs, making a total of Rs. 5147/-. When notice was issued to the appellant on draft proclamation, objection was raised on the ground that the amount shown in the execution petition was incorrect The objection was overruled and the petition was posted for settlement of sale proclamation to 15101973. The appellant took the matter in appeal In the appellate court objection was raised on the ground that the transmission of decree by the Payyoli Court to the Nadapuram Court was irregular and that the Nadapuram Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. The contention was that the amount sought to be realised in the execution petition was above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Nadapuram Munsiff's Court and as such that court was incompetent to execute the decree. The objection however, was overruled by the appellate court and the appeal was dismissed. 2. In the second appeal the only point raised is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Nadapuram Munsiff's Court to execute the decree. The argument is that the amount sought to he realised in the execution petition being above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, the decree should not have been transferred to the Nadapuram Munsiff's Court. The court competent to execute the decree was the Munsiff's Court, Payyoli which passed the decree and the courts superior thereto. 3. S.38 of the Civil Procedure Code states that a decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution. The court competent to execute the decree was the Munsiff's Court, Payyoli which passed the decree and the courts superior thereto. 3. S.38 of the Civil Procedure Code states that a decree may be executed either by the court which passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution. S.39 (1) provides that the court which passed a decree may, on the application by the decree-holder send it for execution to another court if the person or property sought to be proceeded against is within the jurisdiction of the latter court or for other appropriate reasons. Sub-section (2) of S.39 states that the court which passed a decree may, of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate court of competent jurisdiction. There is difference of opinion among the High Courts as to the competency of the transferee court to execute a decree when the amount sought to be realised is above its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Madras High Court has taken the view that a decree can be transferred under S.39 (1) to another court for execution even though the amount or value of the decree exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of such court. Some of the other High Courts have expressed the view that S.39 (1) is controlled by S.6 and a decree cannot be transferred under sub-section (1) if the amount or value of the decree exceeds its pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Courts of Calcutta and Patna bold that the value of the suit in which the decree is passed should be within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court to which the decree is proposed to be sent. In the case Chandravathy Amnia v. Erumullan (1966 KLT 600) the Kerala High Court followed the decision in Jagannatha v. Appalaswamy (AIR. 1914 Madras 206 (1)) and held that in the case of the transfer of a decree on the application of the decree-holder the court which passed it may transfer it to any other court irrespective of its pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellant would say that the above decision requires reconsideration. It is also contended that equality in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the transferee court is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court to execute a decree where the amount sought to be executed is beyond its pecuniary limits. 4. The appellant would say that the above decision requires reconsideration. It is also contended that equality in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the transferee court is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court to execute a decree where the amount sought to be executed is beyond its pecuniary limits. 4. In the instant case it may not be necessary to consider whether the dictum laid down in 1966 KLT 600 is correct to the full extent. The question to be decided in this case is whether the decree of the Munsiff's Court can be transferred to another Munsiff's Court, if the amount sought to be realised is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that court. S.6 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that save as otherwise provided a court will not have jurisdiction over suits, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. But in the case, of suits for mesne profits, past and future, and in suits for accounts, the general trend of authorities is that a court is competent to pass a decree for amounts beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. The reasoning is that in suits for accounts and for mesne profits the plaintiff need state only the approximate amount that is due to him and once the court is seized of jurisdiction it does not lose it by any change in the value of the subject-matter after the institution of the suit. To hold otherwise would mean that there would be no certainty as to the court in which the suit should be brought or as to the court in which the appeal should be filed. In all such cases the court which passed the decree will be competent to execute it even if the amount to be realised is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. Extending the principle, the more reasonable interpretation of S.39(1) would be that the competency of the court to execute a decree should be decided with reference to its competency to try a suit of valuation similar to the suit in which the decree is passed. Otherwise, if after transferring a decree for execution, there is accumulation of interest or mesne profits, making the amount to be executed above pecuniary limits of the transferee court's jurisdiction, the transferee, court may become incompetent to entertain any further execution petition. Otherwise, if after transferring a decree for execution, there is accumulation of interest or mesne profits, making the amount to be executed above pecuniary limits of the transferee court's jurisdiction, the transferee, court may become incompetent to entertain any further execution petition. In such cases if the property to be proceeded against is beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court which passed the decree; the Subordinate Judge's Court alone will be competent to execute the decree. If as a result of execution the decree debt dwindles, and the execution petition is dismissed by the Subordinate Judge's Court it will be open to the decree-holder to get a transfer of the decree for further execution to the Munsiff's Court within whose jurisdiction the property is situate. If thereafter interest or mesne profits accumulates that court may become incompetent to entertain a subsequent execution petition. This means that the jurisdiction to execute the identical decree would vary depending on the amount realisable under the decree from time to time and there would be lack of certainty in the matter. This uncertainty or lack of preciseness can be avoided if it is held that a court of like jurisdiction as the court which passed the decree will be competent to execute the decree whatever be the amount due under the decree. 5. In the instant case the decree was passe4 by the Munsiff's Court, Payyoli. The Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram, is a court of like pecuniary jurisdiction. In the light of the above discussion and giving a reasonable interpretation to S.39 the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram, should be held to be a court which is competent to execute the decree of the Munsiff's Court, Payyoli. 6. It is noted that the transfer of the decree in this case was effected in the year 1969. Though three execution petitions were filed in the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram, no objection was raised on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The order of the Munsiff's Court does not show that the point now raised was taken up in that court. Therefore, on the merits the plea is a belated one. Since no interference is called for, the execution second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.