Lack of territorial jurisdiction does not render a decree null and void if objections were not raised at the earliest opportunity.

1. This Revision has been filed by the Petitioner in E.A. No. 13 of 2005 in E.P.No.100 of 2002 in O.S. No.77 of 1985 against the order of dismissal passed by the lower Court in finding the final decree passed in O.S.No.77 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional Sub-Judge, Coimbatore as a nullity and incapable of execution and to dismiss E.P.No.100 of 2002.

2. Heard Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. K. Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the First Respondent. No appearance for the Respondents 2 to 4.

3. The Petitioners entered into a sale agreement with Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the husband of 4th Respondent. As per the sale agreement, the 4th Respondent executed a Sale Deed with regard to her share to the 2nd Petitioner.

4. The Respondents 2 to 4 are the judgment debtors and the First Respondent is the decree holder in a Suit filed by the First Respondent for the sale of mortgage property on an equitable mortgage created against the said properties and the Suit was contested and preliminary decreed and thereafter a final decree has also been passed in terms of the preliminary decree and the execution proceedings have also been launched by the decree holder in E.P. No.100 of 2002.

5. Apart from that it has been contended that the preliminary decree was passed in the Suit O.S. No.77 of 1985 on 11.12.1985 and however, the First Respondent/decree holder had applied before the Trial Court for passing the final decree in terms of the preliminary decree only on 2.9.1994, which is more than three years, as permitted by law.

6. Further more, it has been contended that some of the properties are not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which passed the preliminary decree and final decree and the Trial Court lack territorial jurisdiction and the decree passed was for want of jurisdiction and would make the decrees null and void and on that score also the decrees passed by the Trial Court cannot be executed.

7. However, the lower Court had considered all the points raised by the Petitioners and disallowed them and finally dismissed the Petition. Aggrieved by the said decisions, the Petitioners have come forward with this Revision.

8. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit in his argument that the lower Court was not correct to come to a conclusion that the Petition filed by the Petitioners was not maintainable. He would further submit that the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.77 of 1985 on 11.12.1985 and subsequently, the final decree passed on 30.6.1995 are nullity, since the said Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree when the mortgaged property is not covered under its territorial jurisdiction. He would also submit that the final decree Application was admittedly filed on 2.9.1994, while the preliminary decree was passed on 11.12.1985 and the period in between those two events was more than three years and the limitation for filing the final decree Application from the date of preliminary decree or from the time fixed for payment as directed in the preliminary decree, would be three years and in the present case, it is obviously more than eight years passed and therefore, the final decree Application itself is not entertainable and the decree passed on the said Application is also a nullity. He would also submit in his argument that the lower Court had come to a wrong conclusion that the validity of the decree cannot be raised in the Execution proceedings and it should have been done at the earliest, cannot be applied in respect of limitation. He would also submit that the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported in Vasudev Dhanji Bhai Modi Versus Raja Bhai Abdul Rehman, AIR 1970 SC 1475, would categorically lay down the principle that the objection regarding the decree as to its nullity can be raised even in the execution proceedings which are lost sight of, by the lower Court. He would also submi