Any judgment rendered by a Judge who has no jurisdiction would result in nullity.

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated dated 28.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal, in O.S.No.142 of 2008, which was filed for declaration and other consequential reliefs.

2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(i) The appellants herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit as against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:

"...the plaintiffs therefore prays:

a) for a declaration that the supplementary deed of Trust dated 3.1.2005 is void and inoperative in law.

b) for removal of the defendants from the office of the management of the plaintiff-trust by directing them to handover the management to the legally constituted trustees Dr.S.Natesan and Dr.N.Kavitha (Amended as per order in I.A.No.30 of 2009 dated 23.3.09).

c) for directing the defendants to render a true and faithfull account of all the income, receipts and expenditure of the trust properties and institutions including the school during their management from 3.1.2005 and upto the date of handing over the management to the legally constituted trustees Dr.N.Natesan and Dr.N.Kavitha (Amended as per order in I.A.No.3019 of 2009 dated 23.3.09).

d) for surcharging defendants for the funds and moneys misappropriated or taken unauthorisedly from the plaintiff-trust and its educational institution, and direct them to reimburse the same to the plaintiff-trust.

d) for payment of costs of the suit."

(ii) The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement. Whereupon issues were framed.

(iii) During trial, on the plaintiffs' side, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no document was marked.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the trail Court, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs on various grounds.

5. While hearing the appeal, this Court suo motu raised the point as to the jurisdiction of the District Judge to pronounce the judgement on this case, in view of the amendment made to the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 (with effect from 25.5.2010) as per Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the Chennai City Civil Court (Amended) Act, 2010.(Act No.19 of 2010).

6. Whereupon both sides in unison would concur with the view expressed by me that the District Judge, as on the date of pronouncement of the judgement, was having no jurisdiction to handle the matter in view of Section 4 of the Act N.19/2010 and the said Section in the amendment Act contemplated the transitory provision. Even, pending cases also should have been transferred by the District Judge to the Sub Court concerned for proceeding further with the matter. But, without knowing the salient features of the amendment, the District Judge simply dealt with the matter and pronounced the judgement.

7. For better clarity, I would like to extract hereunder the amended Sec.12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil courts Act, 1973:

"Sec.12.Jurisdiction of District Judge or Subordinate Judge in original suits -The jurisdiction of a District Judge extends, subject to the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, of which the amount of value of the subject matter exceeds ten lakh rupees. The jurisdiction of a Subordinate Judge extends, subject to the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to all like original suits and proceedings, of which the amount or value of the subject-matter exceeds one lakh rupees, but does not exceed ten lakh rupees.

Jurisdiction of District Munsif - The jurisdiction of a District Munsif extends to a