ORDER Shri Athokpam Madhu Singh defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Imphal, in Case No. 2 of 1963. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this revision petition lie in a short compass. On 30-3-1963 the plaintiffs who are the responded in this Court, instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 40/- being the value of 4 pots of paddy from the defendant-petitioner in the Court of Munsiff invested with Small Cause Powers with the contention that they are joint owners with Amusana Devi, Kunjabati Devi, Indu Devi and Mani Devi of the land under patta No. 3/67 Langthabai Kunja, comprising 3 dags. All the six owners are in possession of the said paddy land for the last many years by paying revenue regularly. The defendant is the tenant of the plaintiffs an, other 4 joint owners since 1961 and he pays loushal at the rate of 2 pots of paddy to each of the six owners. The plaintiffs are entitled to get 4 pots of paddy as their share. In the year, 1963 the defendant paid the share to the other 4 owners but he refused to pay the share of the plaintiffs, therefore they were constrained to bring the suit against him. The defendant in his written statement traversed the claim of the plaintiffs, and inter alia pleaded that he is the tenant of the other 4 owners and not that of the plaintiffs. He also pleaded that he paid the entire loushal to the other 4 owners from whom he took this land for cultivation. The learned Munsiff after recording the evidence and hearing the Advocates decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendant being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court has come to this Court in revision. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this suit is for recovery of rent other than house rent, and the learned Munsiff exercising powers of a Small Cause Court has not been expressly invested by the Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto. He further pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, read with Arts. 7 and 8 of Sch. He further pointed out that in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, read with Arts. 7 and 8 of Sch. II the Judge to small Cause Court cannot try this case. It was also contended that this case involves the question of the determination of title to immovable property as well as the question of tenancy, therefore the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to decide this point. In this case, the Judge, Small Cause Court decided this case without jurisdiction and hence the judgment and decree should be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned counsel for the! petitioner did not raise this point before the Judge of the Small Cause Court, therefore he is barred to raise this point now in revision. There is no substance in this argument. In this case the counsel for the petitioner has raised the point that the Judge, Small Cause Court had, no jurisdiction to try this case. This point being one of jurisdiction could be raised under Section 115 of the C.P.C. On this point, I may I refer to Adam Asmal Abhram Dadabhai v. Hiralal Chimanlal, AIR 1965 Guj 131 , wherein, Mehta, J. has observed as follows : "Question of jurisdiction not raised in trial Court could be raised in revision." 5. The learned counsel for the respondents next averred that in this case the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, by not raising any objection about anything, there fore he is restrained from, raising such objection. He also pointed out that by this judgment and decree no substantial injustice has been paused to the parties, therefore this Court should not interfere in the finding of the lower Court. There is no merit in this contention. It is Appellant fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and, wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. A defect of jurisdiction whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. In the instant case the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, therefore even if the petitioner did not raise this objection before the trial Court he cannot be barred to raise it now and it cannot be treated as a waiver. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents next contended that from the proceedings, it is clear that the learned Munsiff treated this case as a regular suit, therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Munsiff tried this case as a Judge of Small Cause Court is wrong and the Court should not interfere in the finding of the lower Court. This contention is devoid of force. From the perusal of the order sheets, the heading of the case and the judgment it is quite clear that the learned Munsiff has tried this case as a Judge of the Small Cause Court. This case involved the question of the realisation of rent of the immovable property, therefore the learned Munsiff had no jurisdiction to try it as a Judge, Small Cause Court, in view of Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with articles 7 and 8 of schedule II. In this case the decree passed by the learned Munsiff was without jurisdiction, therefore it amounts tot nullity, and hence I have no other alternative but to accept the revision petition. 7. I, therefore, accept the revision petition and set aside the judgment and decree and remand the case back to the Munsiff to try it according to law. Revision accepted.