The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and no amount of consideration can make it valid or effective.

( 1 ) IN this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the code for short), the Judgment and Decree dated 15-12-1984 passed by the Additional civil Judge, Chikodi, in R. A. No. 80/84 on his file, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13-7-1984 passed by the Additional munsiff, Chikodi, in O. S. No. 256/78 is challenged. The prayer is to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15-12-1984 in ra. No. 80/84, confirming the Judgment and decree in O. S. No. 256/78 and to dismiss the suit.

( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is before us on a Reference made under Section 8 of the karnataka High Court Act, by a Single judge.

( 3 ) THE question involved in the matter is : whether the decree passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi, in R. A. No. 80/84, confirming the decree in O. S. No. 256/78 passed by the Additional Munsiff, chikodi, in contravention of Section 9 of the karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the small Cause courts Act) as amended from time to time, is a nullity?

( 4 ) THE facts of the matter are these : shankar Mahadev Umarane - the respondent herein, filed the suit on 11-9-1978 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2405/- with interest and costs from shivamurthi Mallayya swami - the petitioner herein. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent in this Revision Petition would be referred to as the defendant and the plaintiff respectively, as shown in the cause title of the original proceedings. The plaintiff averred in the suit that the defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 1850/- on 5-3-1976, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. The defendant agreed to repay the amount on demand made by the plaintiff. The defendant executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff on 5-3-1976. The defendant did not pay the amount in spite of repeated demands. Calculating the 'interest at the rate' pleaded on the principal sum from the date of the loan to the date of the suit at Rs. 555/-, the plaintiff filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2405/- as stated earlier.

( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit. He traversed the plaint averments and contended that he had not taken the loan; that he had not executed the Promissory Note; and that he had not agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. He also contended that the plaintiff was carrying on money lending business without a licence and that, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. According to him, the plaintiff was I in the habit of getting some letters or receipts written by other people on blank papers and was in the habit of threatening the people, whose signatures he used to so obtain with recovery of the dues.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the additional Munsiff formulated the following issues for consideration: (1) Whether the suit is maintainable without producing licence as required under money Lenders Act? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed Rs. 1850/- and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 15% p. a. ? (3) To what reliefs the parties are entitled to?

( 7 ) THE plaintiff examined himself as p. W-1 and adduced the evidence of P. W-2, the witness to Ex. P-1, the Promissory Note. Four documents were admitted in evidence for him. The defendant entered the witnessbox and gave evidence as D. W-1 and relied upon four documents, marked as exs. D-1 to D-4.

( 8 ) THE Additional Munsiff, on consideration of the evidence, held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiff had proved that the defendant borrowed rs. 1850/- and executed a Demand promissory Note, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 15 per cent per annum. He recorded his findings accordingly on Issues nos. 1 and 2 and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in part. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2405/- with future