Territorial jurisdiction waiver and land recovery claim upheld where evidence showed a limited conveyance and limitation failed.

Territorial jurisdiction was treated as capable of waiver under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a suit validly instituted before territorial reorganisation was not rendered a nullity; the parties having submitted to the court's jurisdiction, the final decree could not be impeached collaterally. On the merits, erasures in the agreement, together with correspondence and oral evidence, supported the view that only four velis were intended to be conveyed and that one veli remained with the mortgagors. The claim was treated as one for recovery of land rather than specific performance, so limitation did not bar the relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the final decree was void for want of territorial jurisdiction and whether the objection to jurisdiction was waived under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover one veli of land on the footing that the agreement was for four velis and not five, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the final decree was void for want of territorial jurisdiction and whether the objection to jurisdiction was waived under Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The suit was validly instituted when the court had territorial jurisdiction, and the subsequent transfer of territorial limits did not make the pending proceedings a nullity. Territorial jurisdiction was treated as capable of waiver, unlike subject-matter or pecuniary jurisdiction, and the parties had in fact submitted to and invoked the court's jurisdiction. The objection was therefore not available in the collateral proceeding to impeach the decree.

Conclusion: The final decree was not void for want of jurisdiction, and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover one veli of land on the footing that the agreement was for four velis and not five, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The agreement relied upon showed material erasures, and the surrounding correspondence and oral evidence supported the version that only four velis were intended to be conveyed, with one veli to be retained by the mortgagors. The decree-holder's possession of the properties did not pass title to the added extent, and the suit was treated as one for recovery of land rather than specific performance, so it was within time.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to recover one veli of land out of the five mortgaged velis, and the plea of limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree was upheld as to jurisdiction, but relief was granted only to the limited extent of one veli, resulting in a partial success for the appellant and dismissal of the connected appeal.

---