JUDGMENT : The appellants are the legal representatives of one Mirza Yasin Beg, the original defendant-appellant who died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal arose out of a suit by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration that they and not the defendants were the occupants of certain lands and for rectification of the Register of Rights. The plaintiffs-respondents succeeded in both the Courts. 2. A preliminary contention has been taken by the appellants that the whole trial of the suit was a nullity for want of pecuniary jurisdiction in the Court of the Munsiff, Raisen which entertained and tried the suit. The suit was instituted on 13-2-1946 in the Court of the Munsiff, Raisen whose pecuniary jurisdiction was only upto Rs.500/-. In the original plaint the value for the purposes of jurisdiction was not stated and the Munsiff having tried the suit had even decreed it. The suit was, however, remanded on appeal on other points. The defendant then pointed out that the suit was not valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and should be dismissed on that ground. The plaintiffs then amended the plaint valuing the suit at Rs.960/5/- and the defendant contended that the Court of the Munsiff had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. An issue was framed on this question and the suit was proceeded with. By the time the suit was decided, a Sub Judge was appointed at Raisen and the Munsiff transferred the suit to the Sub-Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs.10,000/-. The Sub-Judge then held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit which was decreed. On appeal the defendant raised the question again in ground No. 3 in his memo of appeal, but the learned District Judge overlooked it and gave no finding on it, but on other grounds dismissed the appeal. 3. The same question is now raised in this Court and it is urged that the Munsiff having no jurisdiction to try the suit and also to transfer it to the Subordinate Judge, the decree passed by the latter was a nullity. On the other side firstly an application for an amendment of the plaint valuing the suit at Rs.500/- was filed and secondly it is urged that the provisions of S.99, Civil P.C. and S.11, Suits Valuation Act saved the decree from being a nullity. 4. On the other side firstly an application for an amendment of the plaint valuing the suit at Rs.500/- was filed and secondly it is urged that the provisions of S.99, Civil P.C. and S.11, Suits Valuation Act saved the decree from being a nullity. 4. The application for amendment of the plaint is rejected by a separate order for reasons stated. The only point for determination, therefore, is whether the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on the proceedings taken by the Munsiff was a nullity or is saved as contended by the respondents. The provisions of O.7, R.1, Civil P.C. or the corresponding provisions of the Bhopal Civil Procedure Code require that "a plaint shall state valuation for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction." This was not done to begin with, by the plaintiffs, but after the remand the respondents-plaintiffs themselves having valued it at Rs.960/-5/-, the amendment must be taken to relate back to the date on which the suit was instituted. This meant that from the very inception the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff and the proceedings taken by him were all ultra vires. It is not that the objection was not taken at the proper time. It was taken as soon as the plaintiffs stated the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and under the law such objection could be taken at any time as is held in - 'Karashiddayya Shidayya v. Shree Gajanan Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.', AIR 1943 Bom 288 (A) and - 'Bhagwan Singh v. Barkat Ram', AIR 1943 Lah 129 (B). The Munsiff should have thus returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court and he not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit, all the proceedings taken by him were ultra vires and the decree passed on the strength of the evidence heard and recorded by a Court without jurisdiction is nothing but a nullity. The fact that the subsequent proceedings were dealt with by the Officer having jurisdiction does not alter or improve the position. The fact that the subsequent proceedings were dealt with by the Officer having jurisdiction does not alter or improve the position. If a Court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation, its judgments and orders, however precisely certain and technically correct, are mere nullities and not only voidable; they are void and have no effect either as estoppel or otherwise and may not only be set aside at any time by the Court in which they are rendered but may be declared to be void by every Court in which they may be presented. 5. The contention, that S.99, Civil P.C. or S.11, Suits Valuation Act saves the proceedings and the decree, does not appear to be sound. Section 99 of the Code is not applicable to the case on hand as "the irregularity in the proceedings affects the jurisdiction of the Court." Section 11, Suits Valuation Act is also not applicable as the question involving (sic) is not of overvaluation or under-valuation of the suit as the defendant had not challenged the valuation of the suit as put by the plaintiffs. Having accepted it he challenged the jurisdiction of the Munsiff to try the suit. The decisions in - 'Gopal Chandra v. Sm. Sailabala Devi', AIR 1952 Cal 216 (C); - 'Venkata Mahipathi Gangadhara Rama Rao v. Province of Madras', AIR 1947 Mad 135 (D), are liable to be distinguished as they involve the question of under-valuation which is not the case in the suit on hand. In - 'Sitaram Singh v. Tika Ram Singh', AIR 1942 Oudh 481 (E), the first appellate Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and its decree was held to be a nullity and further that "it was incumbent upon the second appellate Court to consider an objection on that ground even if it had been taken late." It is further held that: 'Where the question is one of want of pecuniary jurisdiction and not of over-valuation or undervaluation, S.11, Suits Valuation Act cannot apply. The principle under S.11, Suits Valuation Act, cannot be extended to a case where there is a want of inherent jurisdiction." In - 'Mst. Sunder v. Kandhayia Lal', AIR 1946 All 456 (F), it is held that: "Section 11 applies to cases where there has been an over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit. The principle under S.11, Suits Valuation Act, cannot be extended to a case where there is a want of inherent jurisdiction." In - 'Mst. Sunder v. Kandhayia Lal', AIR 1946 All 456 (F), it is held that: "Section 11 applies to cases where there has been an over-valuation or under-valuation of a suit. It does not apply to cases where a suit has been properly valued and the plaint is then presented in a Court which on the face of it has no jurisdiction to deal with the suit." In the circumstances, the two provisions noted above do not save the decree in the trial Court being a nullity. 6. The proceedings taken by the Sub-Judge also suffer for want of jurisdiction. He became seized of the case not as Presiding Officer of the Court but as the suit was transferred by the Munsiff to his Court in December, 1950. The Munsiff had no power under the Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer the suit direct to the Sub-Judge. The order of the transfer of the suit was, therefore, ultra vires of the Munsiff and the jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge being based on this order, the proceedings taken by the latter were also ultra vires. On this ground also the decision of the suit and of the consequential appeal which had not decided this question were null and void. 7. The Court of the Munsiff must share the blemish for having overlooked the omission by the plaintiffs to state the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in the original plaint as filed. The proper order on the decree being set aside, therefore, is to remand the suit back to the Court of the Munsiff, Raisen with a direction to return the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. 8. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs against the respondents who shall bear their own costs. The decree of the District Judge together with the order for costs in the appeal and in the suit is set aside and the suit is remanded to the Court of the Munsiff Raisen with a direction to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. Counsel's fees will be up to the maximum, if certified. The parties are directed to appear in the Munsiff's Court on 11-5-54. Appeal allowed.