JUDGMENT Nepram Kali Singh of Langathel has brought this appeal against the order of the learned Sub-judge in Civil Suit No.142 of 1951 by which Mutuin Ghana Singh respondent No.1 has been given a decree declaring that the decree in suit No.1 of 1948/49 passed by the Chief Court, 2nd Bench and confirmed by H.H. the Maharajah of Manipur is a nullity and the respondents are not bound by the aforesaid decree. 2. The facts of the case which have given rise to the present appeal are that Maimom Lalbapu Singh of Bashi Khong respondent No.2 and Mutum Ghana Singh respondent No.1 had borrowed Rs.5000/- from the appellant by means of a deed dated 3-2-45 in which a lorry has been hypothecated. But this deed was not registered. The appellant demanded his dues from the respondent No.1 who advised him to have the deed registered and he took the said deed to have it registered. After about 2 months the respondent No.1 returned this deed saying that he had filed a petition for getting the deed registered and he got back the registered deed Ex.(2). The respondent No.1 further stated that M. Lalbapu Singh had to pay only Rs.2000/- out of balance of Rs.4000/- according to deed Ex.3. The present appellant finding that the debtors were defrauding him brought a criminal case No.376 of 1945-46 against them and the respondent No.2 admitted the debt to the extent of Rs.2000/-but he contended that he had executed the deed regarding another transaction and the amount had also been paid up. The criminal complaint was dismissed by the trial court and the respondents were acquitted. But in appeal the case was taken up as a civil case and it was decreed on 3-9-48 and this decree was confirmed by H. H. the Maharajah of Manipur. The suit No.142 of 1951 which has given rise to the present appeal was instituted on 14-11-51 and the decree No.1 of 1948-49 was held to be a nullity because the court which had passed it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As this suit No.142 of 1951 was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge on 31-12-52 N. Kali Singh has come in appeal and respondent No.1 has filed cross-objection for cost in the suit. 3. As this suit No.142 of 1951 was decreed by the learned Sub-Judge on 31-12-52 N. Kali Singh has come in appeal and respondent No.1 has filed cross-objection for cost in the suit. 3. The only point which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the decision in suit No.1 of 1948-49 was a nullity or Chief Court, 2nd Bench had jurisdiction to entertain that suit and it had merely committed irregularity in decreeing the suit even though it was passed on unregistered hypothecation bond. It has not been disputed before me that the relevant rules regarding registration, in force at the time when the suit No.1 of 1948-49 was instituted, were as follows: 1. The following documents must be registered: (1) Mortgages and deeds of gift or sale of: (a) Homestead lands. (b) culturable lands or crops (c) cattle and ponies. (2) Deeds of cash value of more than Rs.15/-. (3) Transfers of all fisheries, ferries, salt wells and grass mahals. (4) Agreements for hypothecation of crops of more than 12 pots of dhan. The existing documents under these categories must be registered within 3 months of the promulgation of these rules. After the expiry of this period no suits of the above nature will be entertained by any State Court unless supported by registered document. Every document must be registered within one month of its execution. The penalty for a breach of this rule is double registration fee for every month of delay. The Political Agent has issued similar instructions with regard to cases in his court. 4. The Indian Registration Act, 1908 was enforced in Manipur State by means of Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 and its application was not restricted by the Schedule appended to Part (C) States (Laws) 1950. So it becomes quite clear that the position with respect to the present deed remained the same as it was, under the old rules for the management of the State of Manipur. As such the State Court could not legally take cognisance of any suit which was based on unregistered document for Rs.4000/-. So it becomes quite clear that the position with respect to the present deed remained the same as it was, under the old rules for the management of the State of Manipur. As such the State Court could not legally take cognisance of any suit which was based on unregistered document for Rs.4000/-. The learned Advocate for the appellant has relied on -Ramranbijaya Prasad v. Ramkaval, AIR 1949 Pat 139 (FB) (A) in which it has been laid down that where it is suggested that the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction which it possesses, has not acted according to the note prescribed by the statute, the question relates obviously not to the existence of jurisdiction but to the exercise of it in an irregular or irrelevant manner and in such a case the maxim consensus tollis errorem applies. According to the appellant the present respondent No.1 had not raised objection before the Chief Court, 2nd Bench that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as this objection was not raised there, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to institute fresh suit No.142 of 1951 for avoiding the decree of suit No.1 of 1948-49. But it is settled law that when the Court is not competent to entertain or try the suit there is a want of inherent jurisdiction which cannot be waived and the general rule is that consent cannot give jurisdiction and want of jurisdiction cannot be waived. By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Some of these authorities are by means of statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by the like means. A limitation may be (1) as to the subject-matter (2) as to the person (3) as to the pecuniary value of the suit or (4) as to the place of suing. 5. In the present case the limitation with regard to subject-matter of the suit in so far as no suit should have been entertained by any Court on the basis of unregistered deed of the value of more than Rs.15/- is contended to be fatal as this bar is said to completely oust the jurisdiction of all State Courts in such matters. 6. 6. The rule regarding registration of documents cited by me above thus clearly establishes that after the expiry of 3 months from the promulgation of these rules, no suit of the nature referred to in clause (2) can be entertained by any State Court unless supported by registered documents. The word "entertain" means "to receive and take into consideration." The rule thus clearly means that no Court would be competent to receive any plaint which is based on unregistered document after promulgation of the rules referred to above and so it becomes quite clear that jurisdiction to entertain suits on the basis of unregistered document was expressly taken away by these rules and in the present case there was no question of irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The Chief Court, 2nd Bench took cognisance of the case when it had no jurisdiction to take its cognisance and so the decree passed in the case which was later on confirmed by H. H. the Maharajah of Manipur must be held to be a nullity as it was without jurisdiction vide - Gururajachar v. Rangiah, 52 Mys HCR 455 (465)(B). The appeal, therefore, has no force and it is hereby dismissed with cost to respondent No.1 in both the courts including Rs.50/- as lawyers fee. The cross-objection is thus allowed. Appeal dismissed.