The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of jurisdiction of a court to pronounce judgment renders the judgment null and void, and the matter must be remitted to the appropriate court with jurisdiction.

1. This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants as against the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.178 of 2004.

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

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:

(i) The defendants are the appellants herein. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

- To pass a judgment and decree

a) declaring the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties fully described here under in schedule.

b) directing the first defendant to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff's next friend and on failure to do so the possession of the suit properties be delivered to the plaintiff's next friend through process of court.

c) granting mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to deposit the balance income derived from the suit properties after deducting the taxes and incidental expenses into this court, and for costs.

(extracted as such)

(ii) The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) The trial court framed the relevant issues.

(iv) During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. The first defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B16.

(v) Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, viz., Principal District Court, Krishnagiri the defendants' have preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. The learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants inviting the attention of this court to Ground No.15 of the grounds of appeal would develop his argument to the effect that as on the date of the pronouncement of the judgment by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 07.06.2010, he had no jurisdiction at all in view of Section 12 Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010 (T.N.Act 19 of 2010).

6. Hence, it is therefore just and proper for me to formulate the following point for consideration:

1. Whether the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri had jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in this matter in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010 (T.N.Act 19 of 2010)?

7. Heard both sides.

8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants would reiterate his stand as found in the aforesaid ground, citing Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2010 (T.N.Act 19 of 2010).

9. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would pyramid his argument, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(a) The trial court, viz., the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri cannot be labelled as the court, which had no inherent jurisdiction at all to render judgment in this case.

(b) No doubt, the transitory provision as relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants/defendants might mandate that all pending suits should be transferred from the said court to the Sub court; however, both sides at that time were not aware of the said provision and consequently enlighten the court and the court also passed the judgment. However, on merits this court can consider the appeal itself.

(c) On the other hand, subject matter wise, if the trial court was lacking in inherent jurisdiction to deal with the matter, then the matter would be entirely different. In this connection, he would cite the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court reported in 2012(2) CTC 623 [V.T.R.Palanisamy Chettiar vs. V.T.R.Srinivasan and two others]. Certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"11.) As rightly pointed out by the learned cou