Judgment : 1. Heard the Counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant was the defendant before the Trial Court. The Courts below having decreed the suit, the present second appeal is filed on two so-called substantial questions of law, which the Counsel for the appellant would contend are very important substantial questions of law. Firstly, that the suit property is situated in Bangalore North Taluk and the suit was filed before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Devanahalli and therefore, the Court was without jurisdiction and hence, whether the suit could have been entertained by the Court which did not have territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, the finding of the Trial Court is that there was no cause of action in view of the admission by the plaintiff in evidence that there was no interference whatsoever by the defendant since the year 1967. This is a statement made categorically in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and therefore, on these two substantial questions of law, the appeal would have to be allowed. 3. Insofar as the first contention that the Trial Court did not have jurisdiction is concerned, even if the Court did not have jurisdiction, the same being a Court of law, it ought to be established that the judgment of such Court which has decided the case without jurisdiction has resulted in manifest injustice in order to make it a ground of appeal. This is not demonstrated. The mere contention that the Court did not have jurisdiction by itself would not render the decree void as no such objection was taken in the first instance. Even though a judgment of the Supreme Court in produced to substantiate that such a contention can be taken at any stage of the proceedings, for reasons stated above, unless there is also a manifest injustice which has resulted in the Court without having jurisdiction exercised its jurisdiction. It would not afford a ground of appeal and it would not form a substantial question of law. 4. Insofar as the second contention that there has been admission in the cross-examination is concerned, the positive case of the plaintiff in her pleadings as well as in the evidence is in support of the case for the reliefs prayed for. A stray admission to the effect that there was no interference since the year 1967, cannot over-turn the entire pleadings and evidence to contend otherwise. A stray admission to the effect that there was no interference since the year 1967, cannot over-turn the entire pleadings and evidence to contend otherwise. It is wholly unjust to rely on such a stray statement being recorded to over-turn the case of the plaintiff to hold that there was no cause of action. This is not a substantial question of law which would warrant interference by this Court even if it could be said that there was an error in the reasoning of the Courts below. Hence, the appeal is rejected.