Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Provisions of the CPC as to Jurisdiction in a Nutshell

PART I

Introduction

“Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” (where there is a right, there is a remedy) is a fundamental principle of civil law. It ensures that if and when a Civil Right is infringed, law confers a civil remedy. It includes:

• Declaration
• Injunction or recovery, or
• Damages or compensation.

Section 9 CPC is casted in enforcement of the principle, “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 is a plenary one.

Section 9 of CPC reads as under:

• 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred—The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

PART II

Pecuniary & Territorial (Place of Filing) Jurisdiction in Civil Suits

The Civil Procedure Code governs the law as to the court in which a civil suit is to be filed.  Various aspects as to the same are contained in Sec. 15 to 21 of the CPC, under the caption ‘Place of Suing’.

With respect to the jurisdiction of courts, it is held in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 4446, as under:

• “The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are:
  • (i)   Territorial or local jurisdiction;
  • (ii)  Pecuniary jurisdiction; and
  • (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Sec. 15 to 21 of the CPC read as under:

• Section 15 Court in which suits to be instituted.
• Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

• Section 16 Suits to be instituted where subject-matter situate.
• Subject to the pecuniary or other limitations prescribed by any law, suits
  • (a) for the recovery of immovable property with or without rent or profits,
  • (b) for the partition of immovable property,
  • (c) for foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage of or charge upon immovable property,
  • (d) or the determination of any other right to or interest in immovable property,
  • (e) for compensation for wrong to immovable property,
  • (f) for the recovery of movable property actually under distraint or attachment,
• shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate:
• Provided that a suit to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property held by or on behalf of the defendant may, where the relief sought can be entirely obtained through his personal obedience, be instituted either in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate, or in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain.
• Explanation.– In this section “property” means property situate in ¹[India].

• Section 17 Suits for immovable property situate within jurisdiction of different Courts.
• Where a suit is to obtain relief respecting, or compensation for wrong to, immovable property situate within the jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate:
• Provided that, in respect of the value of the subject-matter of the suit, the entire claim is cognizable by such Court.

• Section 18 Place of institution of suit where local limits of jurisdiction of Courts are uncertain.
• (1) Where it is alleged to be uncertain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which of two or more Courts any immovable property is situate, any one of those Courts may, if satisfied that there is ground for the alleged uncertainty, record a statement to that effect, and thereupon proceed to entertain and dispose of any suit relating to that property, and its decree in the suit shall have the same effect as the property were situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction:
• Provided that the suit is one with respect to which the Court competent as regards the nature and value of the suit to exercise jurisdiction.
• (2) Where a statement has not been recorded under sub-section (1), and an objection is taken before an Appellate or Revisional Court at a decree or order in a suit relating to such property was made by a Court not having jurisdiction where the property is situate, the Appellate or Revisional Court shall not allow the objection unless in its opinion there was, at the time of the institution of the suit no reasonable ground for uncertainty as to the Court having jurisdiction with respect thereto and there has been a consequent failure of Justice.

• Section 19 Suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables.
• Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.

• Section 20 Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.
• Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
• (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
• (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
• (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
• Explanation I.- Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence.
• Explanation II.- A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in [India] or, in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place.

PART III

Defect on the basis of Pecuniary and Territorial Jurisdiction

Generally speaking, the defects on the basis of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction are not so serious compared to the defect for lack of jurisdiction in the subject matter or inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is reflected in Sec. 21, 21A, 99 and 99A, CPC.

Section 21, 21A, 99 and 99A CPC reads as under:

• 21. Objections to jurisdiction.
• (1)] No objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues or settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
• (2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.
• (3) No objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.]

• 21A. Bar on suit to set aside decree on objection as to place of suing.
• No suit shall lie challenging the validity of a decree passed in a former suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, on any ground based on an objection as to the place of suing.
• Explanation.-The expression “former suit” means a suit which has been decided prior to the decision in the suit in which the validity of the decree is questioned, whether or not the previously decided suit was instituted prior to the suit in which the validity of such decree is questioned. 

• 99. No decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction.
• No decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded in appeal on account of any misjoinder or non-joinder of parties or causes of action or any error, defect or irregularity in any proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the Court.
• Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.

• 99A. No order under section 47 to be refused or modified unless decision of the case is prejudicially affected.
• Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 99, no order under section 47 shall be reversed or substantially varied, on account of any error, defect or irregularity in any proceeding relating to such order, unless such error, defect or irregularity has prejudicially affected the decision of the case.

No reversal purely on Technical Grounds, unless Failure of Justice

In Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340,  it was observed as under:

• “The policy underlying sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the Legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits”

See Blog (Cllick): Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse, Cannot be Placed in a Straight-Jacket & Not a Judicial Cure-all.

Section 21A CPC Takes-in Objection as to Pecuniary Jurisdiction also

In Subhas Mahadevasa Habib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, AIR 2007 SC 1828, it is held as under:

• “Though Section 21A of the Code speaks of a suit not being maintainable for challenging the validity of a prior decree between the same parties on a ground based on an objection as to “the place of suing”, there is no reason to restrict its operation only to an objection based on territorial jurisdiction and excluding from its purview a defect based on pecuniary jurisdiction.”

When parties, by agreement, to confer jurisdiction on a Court

Our Apex Court held in Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740, as under:

• “It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer by their agreement jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. But where two courts or more have under the Code of Civil Procedure jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. Such an agreement does not contravene s. 28 of the Contract Act.”

In Seth Hiralal Patni vs Sri Kali Nath, 1962 AIR 199, the Supreme Court held as under:

• “The decision of the Privy Council in the case of Ledgard v. Bull, (1886) LR 13 IA 134, is an authority for the proposition that consent or waiver can cure defect of jurisdiction but cannot cure inherent lack of jurisdiction. In that case, the suit had been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, who was incompetent to try it. By consent of’ the parties, the case was transferred to the Court of the, district Judge for convenience of trial. It was laid down by the Privy Council that as the Court in the suit had been originally instituted was entirely lacking in jurisdiction, in the sense that it was incompetent to try it, whatever happened subsequently was null and void because consent of parties could not operate to confer jurisdiction on a Court which was incompetent to try the suit. That decision has no relevance to a case like the present where there could be no question of inherent lack of jurisdiction in the sense that the Bombay High Court was incompetent to try a, suit of that kind. The objection to its territorial jurisdiction is one which does not go to the competence of the Court and can, therefore, be waived. In the instant case, when the plaintiff obtained the leave of the, Bombay High Court on the original side, under el. 12 of the Letters Patent, the correctness of the procedure or of the order granting the leave could be. questioned by the defendant or the objection could be waived by him. When he agreed to refer the matter to arbitration through Court, he would be deemed to have waived his objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, raised by him in his written statement. It is well settled that the objection as to local jurisdiction of a Court does not stand on the same footing as an objection to the competence of a Court to try a case. Competence of a Court to try a case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction, and where it is lacking, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. On the other hand, an objection as to the local jurisdiction of a Court can be waived and this principle has been given a statutory recognition by ‘enactments like s. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Having consented to have the controversy between the parties resolved by reference to arbitration through Court, the defendant deprived himself of the right to question the authority of the Court to refer the matter to arbitration or of the arbitrator to render the award. It is clear, therefore, that the defendant is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court to entertain the suit and to make the reference to the arbitrator. He is equally estopped from challenging the authority of the arbitrator to render the award.”

Availability of Alternative Forum – Objection be Taken at the Earliest,

It is held by our Apex Court Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan: AIR 1954 SC 340. as under:

• “The policy underlying sections 21 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a Court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in a failure of justice, and the policy of the Legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate Court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits.”(Quoted in: Bahrein Petroleum v. P.J. Pappu, AIR 1966 SC 634)

It is held by our Apex Court in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508, as under:

• “Where there is a special tribunal conferred with jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction to try a particular class of cases even then the civil court can entertain a civil suit of that class on availability of a few grounds. An exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court is not to be readily inferred. (See Dhulabhai v. State of M.P, (1968) 3 SCR 662) An objection as to the exclusion of the civil court‘s jurisdiction for availability of alternative forum should be taken before the trial court and at the earliest, failing which the higher court may refuse to entertain the plea in the absence of proof of prejudice.”

PART IV

Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction

As shown above, defects on pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction are not so fatal as compared to inherent lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction on the subject matter of the suit. The objections as to the first category has to be raised in the pleadings at the earliest opportunity. If it is not done the party concerned is loses his chance.

Inherent Lack of Jurisdiction or Jurisdiction on the Subject Matter

The objections to the second category (inherent lack of jurisdiction or jurisdiction on the subject matter) can be raised without pleading and at any stage of the suit or even in execution or collateral proceedings.

In view of Sec. 21 CPC (objection as to the place of suing shall be taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity) it is held in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, AIR 2007 SC 1077, as under:

• “We may, however hasten to add that a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 of the CPC; and a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.”

The third category in this line is the objection that can be raised in any stage, including appeal or revision, without pleading, but not in execution or collateral proceedings (eg. bar by limitation). Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey, AIR 1964 SC 907; Bhawarlal Bhandari v. M/s. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, AIR 1999 SC 246.

It is held by our Apex Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340. as under:

• “It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.” (Referred to in : Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) AIR 2015 SC 2006.)

Lack of ‘Subject-Matter-Jurisdiction‘

Decision on a Labour Dispute by a Civil Court and pronouncement on a civil matter by the Rent Controller are the common examples of lack of ‘subject-matter jurisdiction’.

Our Apex Court held in P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao, AIR 1974 SC 2089, that there will be no res judicata if the former suit was filed in a court where it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. The Court held as under:

• “The appellant proved that the appellant made a mistake of fact in regard to the building, being outside the mischief of the Act. The appellant instituted the-suit before the Rent Controller in mistake about the underlying and fundamental fact that the building was outside the ambit of the Act. The Civil Court has jurisdiction in the subsequent suit which is the subject of this appeal. The appellant is not disentitled to any relief on the grounds of res judicata or estoppel or waiver. As one cannot confer jurisdiction by consent similarly one cannot by agreement waive exclusive jurisdiction of courts. The Civil Court and not the Rent Control possesses jurisdiction over the building in question.”

In Chief Engineer Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath, AIR 2008 SC 1315, it was held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute of termination of service of a workman as the labour Court alone had the jurisdiction with respect to the same. The Supreme Court held as under:

• “Once the original decree itself has been held to be without jurisdiction and hit by the doctrine of coram non judice, there would be no question of upholding the same merely on the ground that the objection to the jurisdiction was not taken at the initial, First Appellate or the Second Appellate stage. It must, therefore, be held that the civil court in this case had no jurisdiction to deal with the suit and resultantly the judgments of the Trial Court, First Appellate Court and the Second Appellate Court are liable to be set aside for that reason alone and the appeal is liable to be allowed.”

See Blog: Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts

Where court has No Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter, Order Will Be Nullity

In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 4446, it is held as under:

• “So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity.”

Void Judgment: When No declaration needed. When a Judgment or Order (or any other transaction) is wholly without jurisdiction or ab initio void, it can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally.

1. A void judgment
   • entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or
   • lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or
   • an order procured by fraud
     • Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., (182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 III. 1999).
     • Referred to by Kerala High Court in Sulochana Gupta v. RBG Enterprises Pvt.  Ltd.  dt. 09 Sep 2020.
2. Void acts, void transactions, void decrees –
   • wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void.
     • 2009-4 KLT 840; (2002) 9 SCC 28; 2013 SC 1226;  2009 4 KLT 840.
     • Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University AIR 2001 SC 2552, T. Arivanandanam v. T. V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467; N. V. Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma, (2005) 5 SCC 548, Manoharlal Chatrath v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 2000 Delhi 40.
3. Void document,
   • then suit for recovery of possession simpliciter can be filed, without the need to seek a declaration about invalidity of the documents.
     • Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, (2013) 5 SCC 427; State of Maharashtra v. Pravin Jethalal Kamdar: 2000 SC 1099; Sanjay Kaushish v. D.C. Kaushish, AIR 1992 Delhi 118.
   • A void document is not   required   to   be   avoided,   whereas   a   voidable document must be.
     • Ranga-nayak-amma v. K.S.   Prakash, (2008) 15 SCC 673.
4. Sale which was entirely without jurisdiction,
   • is   non   est   in   the   eye   of   law, and such   a nullity does not, from its very nature, need setting aside.
     • Mahadeo Prasad Singh v. Ram Lochan, (1980) 4 SCC 354;
5. When a document is void ab initio,
   • a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non-est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.
     • Prem   Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353  
6. Order without jurisdiction obtained by collusion
   • Not necessary to bring an independent suit for setting it aside.
     • Gram Panchayat of Village Naulakha v. Ujagar Singh, AIR 2000 SC 3272.
7. If declaration surplusage
   • Appanna v. Jami Venkatappadu, 1953 Mad.611.
8. Cannot be & cannot be required to be set aside.
   • Ishar Singh Kripal Singh and Co., 1956 Cal. 321

See Blog: Declaration and Injunction

Void act or transaction – When Required to be Set Aside

There are instances where it is not permissible for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void without getting it set aside from the competent court, such as:

1. When an order is void to one but valid to another.
   • “It is well settled principle of law that even a void order is required to be set aside by a competent Court of law, inasmuch as an order may be void in respect of one person but may be valid in respect of another. A void order is necessarily not non-est. An order cannot be declared to be void in collateral proceedings and that too in the absence of the authorities who were the authors thereof.”
     • M. Meenakshi v. Metadin Agarwal, 2006-7 SCC 470; Quoted in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588. Also See: Anita International v. Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh, 2016-9 SCC 44  
2. Where legal effect cannot be taken away without setting aside
   • In cases where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable.
     • Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552, (2001) 6 SCC 534.
3. If an order is void; but, not non-est. 
   • It is required to be set aside.
     • Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh, 2016-9 SCC 44.
   • For setting aside such an order, the party has to approach the appropriate forum resorting to appropriate proceedings.
     • Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588.   Referred: State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 SC 906, Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries, AIR 1997 SC 1240,
4. Fraud on Character of document (not contents).
   • E.g.: A sale deed was got executed as if it was a lease.
     • See: Prem Singh v. Birbal -(2006) 5 SCC 353; 2014 (3) KLJ 55.
5. When a declaration cannot be obtained in collateral proceedings
   • Even if a decree is void ab initio, declaration to that effect has to be obtained by the person aggrieved from the competent court. More so, such a declaration cannot be obtained in collateral proceedings.
     • Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588   Relied on in: Shyam Sundar Singh v. Smt. Sulochana Devi on 23 November, 2021

When Declaration Sufficient; Need NOT be Set Aside

• “An order may be void for one and voidable for the other. An invalid order necessarily need not be non est; in a given situation it has to be declared as such.”
  • Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba, AIR 2004 SC 1377, Referred to in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588  
• A party aggrieved by an invalid, void or ultra vires order, he has to approach the court for the relief of declaration that the order is inoperative and therefore, not binding upon him. It can be avoided automatically, simply seeking a declaration. It need not be set aside.
  • State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar, AIR 1991 SC 2219, (1991) 4 SCC 1.

Nullity can be raised in Execution or in Collateral proceedings

1. Order without Jurisdiction
   • With respect to a matter over which an authority has no jurisdiction is a nullity and is open to collateral attack, an order passed by an authority which has jurisdiction over the matter, but has assumed it otherwise than in the mode prescribed by law, is not a nullity. It may be liable to be questioned in those very proceedings, but subject to that it is good, and not open to collateral attack.
     • Central Potteries Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1966 SC 932  
2. If possible in execution or collateral proceedings to establish – null and void
   • Orders of Courts have to be obeyed unless and until they are set aside in appeal/revision. Alternatively in any proceedings for execution or in a collateral proceedings where an order is sought to be enforced or relied on, it is possible for a party to establish that the order is null and void. Then the Court considering the matter, if satisfied, will hold that the order is null and void and therefore not executable or enforceable…………………..”
     • S. Balasubramaniyam v. P. Janakaraju, AIR Kant R 2099. Referred to by Kerala High Court in Sulochana Gupta v. RBG Enterprises Pvt.  Ltd.  dt. 09 Sep 2020.

See Blog: Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, Order Without Jurisdiction and Sham Transactions

Conclusion

It is trite law that a decree passed by a Court totally without jurisdiction is a nullity. The law on the point can be summarised as under:

• Lack of jurisdiction hits a Judgment or Order by, lack of jurisdiction:
  • over the parties, or
  • as to territorial limit,
  • pecuniary limit or
  • the subject matter.
• Lack of Jurisdiction is also visited by:
  • ‘lack of inherent power’ to enter the particular judgment, or
  • an order procured by fraud or collusion.
• It is not permissible to treat a Judgment or an Order of a Court/Authority as null and void without setting it aside or declared by the competent court.
  • A judgment of nullity would operate erga omnes i.e. for and against everyone concerned if only it is so declared by the Court.
  • It is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void.
  • Or, it cannot be determined by the parties.
• If only patent and latent invalidity, or inherent lack of jurisdiction/competence, then only such a declaration is permissible.
• Where a decree is passed by a Court without jurisdiction was a nullity, its invalidity could not be corrected, even by the consent of the concerned parties.

Though the principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity was applied strictly in earlier times, there is a slow change in the attitude of the courts as regards the rigidity to see the Orders and Judgments as without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the courts began to apply the doctrines of prejudice, acquiescence, patent and latent invalidity, etc, in this matter.

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic):

Book No. 1.   Handbook of a Civil Lawyer

• Civil Procedure & CPC
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Power of attorney
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• Stamp Act
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Title and Possession
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Practice and Procedure
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities will not Confer ‘Title’
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Evidence Act – General
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Documents
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Contract Act
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Easement
• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
• General Features
• Bye Laws Fundamental
• Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
• Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
• Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
• Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
• Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
• How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
• Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
• Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
• Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
• Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
• Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
• Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
• Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
• Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
• Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
• State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
• What is Trust in Indian Law?
• Public & Private Trusts in India.
• Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
• Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
• Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
• Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
• Alienation of Public Trust Property
• Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
• Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
• Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Religious Trusts & Trustees
• Philosophy of Idol Worship
• Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
• Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
• Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
• Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
• Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
• General
• State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
• Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
• Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions