A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon and even at the stage of execution or even in collateral proceedings, but where the defect in jurisdiction is of a kind which falls within the saving provisions of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, it cannot be raised except in the manner and subject to the conditions mentioned therein.

In this Execution First Appeal the legality and the validity of order dated 8th of January 1969 passed by Shri M. C. Roy, Subordinate Judge, Manipur, by which he accepted the objections of the respondents under Sec. 47 of the Civil P. C., hereinafter called the Code, against the execution application filed by the appellants is challenged.

2. The facts bearing on the appeal are not much in dispute. On 21-3-1968 the present appellants petitioned the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Manipur, for arbitration between themselves and the respondents herein respecting the dispute arising out of an agreement dated 17-8-1967. That agreement was made between the appellants Y. Amudombi Singh and Ch. Ibohal Singh, respectively the Chairman and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of Kharungpat Lamjaokhong Khong Ahanbi Fishing Co-operative Society Limited, hereinafter called the Society, and the respondents. The agreement was in regard to the enjoyment of the sub-fishery called Soirel forming part of Kharungpat Fishery No. 164 for the period 1-4-1967 to 31-3-1968. The reliefs claimed were for the recovery of balance lease-money, immediate cessation by the respondents of the enjoyment of the sub-fishery and vacating the possession thereof and for future mesne profits. The claim made on behalf of the Society was resisted on various grounds. By his award dated 24-7-1968 the Registrar decreed a sum of Rs. 4,950/- in favour of the Society and directed that the amount should be paid by the respondents within two months. The respondents were ordered, in addition, to cease enjoying the sub-fishery forthwith and to deliver the vacant possession thereof to the Society.

On the basis of that award the decree-holders made an execution application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manipur, praying for delivery of possession of the sub-fishery. That prayer was opposed by the judgment-debtors (the respondents of this appeal) who filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code. They pleaded that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to make an award respecting immovable property and that the appropriate authority to which the decree-holders could approach for securing vacant possession of the fishery was either the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Deputy Collector of the area concerned. The decree-holders, in their reply, controverted the validity of the legal objections raised by the judgment-debtors.

3. The only point debated before the executing Court, as revealed by para 6 of the order under appeal, was whether the part of the award "regarding cessation of the enjoyment of Soirel sub-fishery and vacating its possession by the judgment-debtors be (is?) executable or not."

The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to decide a dispute respecting title to or right over any immovable property, such as, sub-fishery, that the Registrar had been moved for giving the award not by the Society but by its Chairman and the Secretary, that the latter had no authority to do so in view of Section 85 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949, hereinafter referred to as the Act, as extended to Manipur, and that on account of these two legal defects the award made by the Registrar respecting the sub-fishery is unexecutable. In para 8 of the order the Subordinate Judge happened to observe, obviously unintentionally that "In view of above finding and decision it is to be held that the decree as passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is without jurisdiction and as such a nullity, which cannot be acted upon in execution." It may be recalled that the only point canvassed before the executing Court on behalf of the judgment-debtors was that the part of the award in regard to the delivery of possession of the sub-fishery to the decree-holders was invalid and that it was never the case of the judgment-debtors that the award was also invalid respecting the sum of Rs. 4,950/- decreed against them.

4. Ag