Judgement R. N. MISRA, J. :- Title Appeal No. 3/70 of 1968/66 has been pending in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh. The property in dispute is located in village Janisahi of Jorum Praganna. At the time when the title suit out of which the appeal arose was instituted, the said village including the disputed property was located within the local jurisdiction of the learned Munsif as also the learned Subordinate Judge of Nayagarh. But during the pendency of the appeal on account of reconstitution of the revenue areas the village Janisahi along with the disputed properties came into the district of Cuttack. After such reconstitution the learned Subordinate Judge made a reference to the learned District Judge of Puri asking for transfer of the appeal from his court to the court of the District Judge, Cuttack, on the aforesaid ground. 2. The learned District Judge in his turn made a reference to this Court. The reference of the learned District Judge was directed to be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial case as it involved a decision on the question of transfer of an appeal and that case was directed to be heard by a Full Bench as a matter of substantial importance was involved. 3. The short question for determination in this case is as to whether a court which had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit on the date of its institution loses such jurisdiction on account of subsequent transfer of the disputed property out of the local area which constitutes its jurisdiction. There is no dispute that the provisions of Section 16, C. P. C. apply to this case, and, therefore, the suit was required to be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property was situate. Admittedly the suit was instituted in the proper court, but during the pendency of the litigation on account of adjustment of the revenue areas, the village in which the disputed property was located has now gone to the district of Cuttack and is admittedly now beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of the courts at Nayagarh. The question that arises is - Has the Subordinate Judge. Nayagarh who is in seisin of the appeal lost jurisdiction on account of such re-allocation? 4. The question that arises is - Has the Subordinate Judge. Nayagarh who is in seisin of the appeal lost jurisdiction on account of such re-allocation? 4. Section 16, C. P. C. deals with the place of suing in litigations involving immovable property, and compliance with the provisions of Section 16, C.P.C. is required at the time when the suit is instituted. Where there has been compliance with Section 16, C.P.C. and the suit has gone before the proper court, what would be the effect if there is a subsequent change of the local jurisdiction and the disputed property is kept out of the local jurisdiction of the court? Such a matter was examined at a considerable length by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in AIR 1925 Mad 117, (Chokkalinga v. Kelayudha), O. S. No. 15 of 1903 out of which that appeal arose was one to set aside the final decree in a mortgage suit. The mortgaged property was situated within the jurisdiction of the Kumbakonam court. In 1907, the jurisdiction over that particular place was transferred from the Kumbakonam court to the Mayavaram court and at the time of passing the final decree the Kumbakonam court had no jurisdiction over the place where the mortgaged property was located. The trial court accepted the contention that the decree was without jurisdiction on the ground of loss of such jurisdiction. The question that arose for determination before their Lordships of the Madras High Court, therefore, involved the self-same question which now arises. On an examination of the matter, their Lordships ultimately held, "The jurisdiction of a Court consists in its power to entertain suits, and when once a suit has been properly entertained, it is difficult to understand how that jurisdiction is removed unless it is specifically so done by the order of a competent authority. Once the suit has been entertained, the remaining proceedings taken therein are not taken by reason of any particular territorial jurisdiction, but in the exercise of the powers vested in the Court to try suits generally and consequently the only time at which the territorial jurisdiction comes into operation is at the time of filing the suit Once the court has seizin of the case, it has jurisdiction to try it to its conclusion, unless there is any reason for holding that that jurisdiction has been removed. If this be the right principle and I think it is, it would account for the fact that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for the trial of suits, pending in a Court which had territorial jurisdiction at the time of their institution, after such jurisdiction has been removed before the trial is concluded." Before the Patna High Court the same question was examined in AIR 1936 Pat 546 (Dineshwari Kuer v. Ram Narain Singh). The point arose in the following setting. A suit had been instituted before the Munsif, Second Court, Gaya for possession with mesne profits in respect of properties situated within Arwal P. S. in the district of Gaya which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsif, Second Court at Gaya. The trial court dismissed the suit, but in the appellate court it was decreed along with mesne profits. The appellate decree had been sustained in Second Appeal before the High Court. Sometime after the determination of the suit in the trial court, but before the disposal of the Second Appeal, a new Munsif had been established at Jehanabad and it had been given the territorial jurisdiction over the Arwal P. S. After the decision in Second Appeal the plaintiffs applied for ascertainment of mesne profits before the Munsif at Jehanabad who after hearing the parties passed a decree for a certain amount. No objection as to the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Jehanabad in the matter of ascertainment of mesne profits was raised before that court. But dissatisfied with the decree the defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge at Gaya. That appeal came to be heard by the Subordinate Judge. He was of the view that the final decree proceeding was a continuation of the suit and the suit was pending in the Second Munsif's court at Gaya and the Munsif at Jehanabad had no jurisdiction to ascertain the mesne profits. The ascertainment of the mesne profits by the new court was thus without jurisdiction. The Division Bench held, "Once new Court is established and the territorial limit of an existing Court is curtailed by notification of Government, the latter Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the area which is taken away from its jurisdiction and placed under the jurisdiction of the newly established Court. The Division Bench held, "Once new Court is established and the territorial limit of an existing Court is curtailed by notification of Government, the latter Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the area which is taken away from its jurisdiction and placed under the jurisdiction of the newly established Court. Similarly, if an area is taken out of the jurisdiction of one existing Court and placed under that of another, the former Court ceases to have jurisdiction over the cases of the area so taken out of the jurisdiction and the pending cases automatically placed under the jurisdiction of the latter Court. It is not enough that a Court should have jurisdiction over a suit at the time of its institution but that its jurisdiction must continue till the case is finally disposed of, subject of course to any order of transfer which may be passed by a competent authority. In order to enable a Court to pass a decree in a suit it must possess the basic jurisdiction which comes under four heads: (1) Territorial, (2) pecuniary, (3) personal and (4) subject-matter. It is essential (barring those cases in which there are doubts about the territorial limits) that the Court must possess all these jurisdictions at the time of the passing of the decree, otherwise it is void. Therefore, if a Court loses the territorial jurisdiction it cannot proceed to pass the decree, though it had such jurisdiction when the suit was instituted." (The underlining is mine) 5. The matter again came up for examination before another Division Bench of the same High Court in AIR 1956 Pat 280 (Ishwar Mahto v. Naipal Singh). The facts of the case which gave rise to the appeal were the following: T. S. No. 17/11 of 1946/44 was instituted on 26-2-44 in the court of the Subordinate Judge at Arrah and was for possession and mesne profits in respect of lands situate in the Sub-division of Sasaram in the district of Shahabad. The preliminary decree was passed on 31-8-46. The preliminary decree was passed on 31-8-46. On 6-1-48, the State Government of Bihar in exercise of their powers under Sections 13(1) and 14(1) of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, issued a notification whereby they declared that a Subordinate Judge's Court shall be established at Sasaram in the district of Shahabad with effect from 19-1-48 and the local limits of the executive sub-divisions of Sasaram and Bhabhua ceased to be included in the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court of the Subordinate Judge at Arrah and got included in the local limits of the jurisdiction of the new Court. The result of this notification was that the territorial jurisdiction over the disputed property changed from the Subordinate Judge at Arrah to the Subordinate Judge at Sasaram. Despite the change referred to above an application for ascertainment of mesne profits on the basis of the preliminary decree dated 31-8-46 was made in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Arrah and was granted. In the execution proceeding that was taken on the basis of the ultimate determination of mesne profits objection was taken to the validity of the decree on the basis that the Subordinate Judge at Arrah had lost jurisdiction in the litigation. The Division Bench referred to the earlier decision of their Court in AIR 1936 Pat 546 and did not follow it. They referred to Section 17 of the Bengal. Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and held that the Court at Arrah continued to have jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court which has already been referred to. 6. Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act (Act 12 of 1887) is to the following effect:- "(1) Where any Civil Court under this Act has from any cause ceased to have jurisdiction with respect to any case, any proceeding in relation to that case which, if that Court had not ceased to have jurisdiction, might have been had therein may be had in the Court to which the business of the former court has been transferred. x x x " The use of the word "may" with reference to the new court seems to be incorporating only an enabling provision. x x x " The use of the word "may" with reference to the new court seems to be incorporating only an enabling provision. It does not have the effect of taking away the jurisdiction which the Court in seisin of the proceeding had, nor is the provision mandatory to the effect that not the old but the new court would be the proper court for continuing the litigation. Jurisdiction with reference to the place of suing is a matter for consideration at the time of suing. Once a litigation has been brought before the proper court and the court is in seisin of the case, the provisions of Section 16, C.P.C. are no more applicable on the simple ground that the mandatory provision contained in that section has already been given effect to, namely, the suit has gone before the proper court. At any stage beyond the time of institution the question of jurisdiction with reference to Section 16, C.P.C. would not arise for consideration. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 16 C. P. C. and Section 17 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, I am of the view that the principle laid down in AIR 1925 Mad 117 and approved in AIR 1956 Pat 280 lays down the correct position of law. 7. It would, therefore, follow that the Court at Nayagarh which had jurisdiction at the time of institution of the case continues to have jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, and there is no need for transfer of the appeal. There has been no loss of jurisdiction on account of transfer of the village in which the disputed property is located from out of the local jurisdiction of the appellate Court, Nayagrah to the district of Cuttack. The request for transfer of the appeal from the learned Subordinate Judge, Nayagarh to the Court of the District Judge of Cuttack is thus unnecessary. 8. G. K. MISRA, C. J. :- I agree. 9. B. K. PATRA, J. : - I agree.