Retrospective statutory amendment and decree nullity: jurisdictional objection could be raised in execution proceedings.

A statutory amendment was applied retrospectively to pending proceedings and was treated as having removed the customary basis for contesting alienation under the earlier enactment. The Court held that the prior recognition of custom did not preserve it as an independent statutory right under Hindu law. Because the objection went to the root of jurisdiction, the decree was vulnerable as a nullity, and that plea could be raised in execution proceedings. The executing court was therefore entitled to examine the nullity objection, and the decree was invalidated on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree passed by the appellate court was a nullity on the ground that the statutory amendment had taken away the customary right to contest alienation, and whether that plea could be raised in execution.

Analysis: The statutory amendment was held to apply retrospectively to pending proceedings, and the customary right recognised and regulated by the earlier enactment was treated as having been taken away by the amendment. The Court held that the parties' rights under Hindu law were not converted into a new statutory right merely because custom had earlier been recognised. A plea that a decree is a nullity, when it goes to the root of jurisdiction, can be raised even in execution. The executing court was therefore not barred from examining the objection based on nullity.

Conclusion: The decree was a nullity and the objection was maintainable in execution. The appellants succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory amendment retrospectively abolishes the customary basis of a decree, the decree becomes vulnerable as a jurisdictional nullity and that objection may be raised in execution proceedings.

---