https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194388 The Supreme Court held that objections to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit cannot be raised in execution proceedings, emphasizing that a decree, even if erroneous, remains binding until set aside through proper legal process. The Court clarified that lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Court passing the decree does not automatically render the decree a nullity. The High Court's decision that the decree was without jurisdiction due to the agricultural use of the land was overturned, and the order of the Court of Small Causes was restored. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the respondent to pay the costs of the appellant throughout. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Sep 2017 17:38:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194388 The Supreme Court held that objections to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit cannot be raised in execution proceedings, emphasizing that a decree, even if erroneous, remains binding until set aside through proper legal process. The Court clarified that lack of inherent jurisdiction in the Court passing the decree does not automatically render the decree a nullity. The High Court's decision that the decree was without jurisdiction due to the agricultural use of the land was overturned, and the order of the Court of Small Causes was restored. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the respondent to pay the costs of the appellant throughout. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194388