Jurisdiction after invalid transfer fails where revenue forum acts without inherent power in a title suit.

The revenue authorities' jurisdiction over the transferred title suit depended on amended Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Once that amendment was struck down as unconstitutional, the transfer from the civil court lacked a valid legal foundation, and any orders passed by the revenue forum were ineffective in law. A body without inherent jurisdiction cannot gain it through consent or acquiescence of the parties. The pending suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs therefore had to remain before the civil court, and the revenue orders were quashed with a direction to return the record for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders passed by the revenue authorities in the transferred title suit were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, and whether the suit had to be sent back to the civil court for disposal.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the revenue authorities arose only because of the amended Section 109 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Once the amended provision had been struck down as unconstitutional, the transfer of the pending title suit from the civil court to the revenue forum stood on an invalid foundation. An authority lacking inherent jurisdiction cannot acquire it by consent or acquiescence of the parties, and any decision rendered by such an authority is ineffective in law. The pending civil suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs was therefore required to remain with the civil court.

Conclusion: The revenue orders were without jurisdiction and inoperative, and they were rightly quashed with a direction to return the records to the civil court for disposal according to law.

---