Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff, against the Judgement and Decree dated 24.11.2006 made in AS.No.77/2005 by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Salem, reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 22.4.2004 made in OS.No.228/2003 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Salem. 2. It is not necessary to set out the facts elaborately leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Appellant/plaintiff filed the above said suit for declaration of his absolute title to the suit property and for delivery of possession and for mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and further relegated the determination of mesne profits to a separate proceedings. The matter was taken in appeal by the Defendants in AS.No.77/2005 before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-I) Sale. Pending the appeal, a petition was filed in IA.No.1096/2006 by the 4th Defendant to decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the decree passed by the Trial Court is non-est. The Appellant herein filed a counter, contending that no question of preliminary issue can be decided in the appeal and the appeal has to be decided on merits. The lower Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration as under:- 1.) Whether the decree passed by the Trial Court is non-est as contended by the 4th Appellant/4th Defendant? 2.) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of declaration and delivery of possession as prayed for in this suit? 3.) Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed for the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum? 3. The lower Appellate Court did not consider the points 2 and 3, but has only taken up the first point, namely, whether the decree passed by the Trial Court is non-est and held that the decree passed by the Trial Court is a nullity and non-est and accordingly, set aside the Judgement and Decree of the Trial Court and remanded the suit to the Trial Court with a direction to return the plaint to the Plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate forum, that is, the District Court. Questioning the correctness of this decision, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. 4. In this case, the Trial Court has given a finding on all issues framed for consideration, after discussing the case of the parties and decided the suit on merits. Questioning the correctness of this decision, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. 4. In this case, the Trial Court has given a finding on all issues framed for consideration, after discussing the case of the parties and decided the suit on merits. But, the first appellate court, holding that the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, namely, the Additional Sub Court, Salem, has been ousted by virtue of the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2004 and in view of the fact that the Plaintiff claimed damages for wrongful occupation of the suit property by the 1st Defendant and tentatively stipulated that a sum of Rs.5000/-will be the value of such damages, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee would be Rs.5,05,000/-. By holding so, the first appellate court held that if the value of the suit is Rs.5,05,000/-, the District Court alone can try the suit, in view of the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2004 by which unlimited jurisdiction of the Sub Court is ousted. The first appellate court further held that the jurisdiction goes to the root of the case and therefore, the decree passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. 5. Mr. S.Venkateswaran, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the lower Appellate Court erred in remanding the suit to the Trial Court, when none of the mandatory requirements of Order 41 Rule 23 of CPC was satisfied. The learned counsel pointed out that the first appellate court erred in overlooking the provisions of Section 21(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, which bars raising of objections before the appellate court. It was further contended that at the time of filing of suit, the Sub Court, Salem was competent to try the suit, as it had unlimited jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that after the enactment of the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2004, the Respondents herein had ample time to raise the issue before the Trial Court, but they have failed to raise the same before passing of the decree by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the decision of this court reported in 2002-1-LW-101 (Rajammal and 4 others Vs. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the decision of this court reported in 2002-1-LW-101 (Rajammal and 4 others Vs. Selvi and another) in support of his submission that the court of appeal cannot consider the correctness of the valuation, when the Defendants have not raised any objection and the said objections, having been not taken at the earliest juncture, cannot be allowed to be taken later under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant relied on yet another decision of this court reported in 2000-3-LW-182 (B.Devendrakumar by his Power of Attorney Agent M.Arunachalam Vs. R.Ranganathan (died) and another) to countenance his submission that merely because mesne profits was awarded pending the suit, that will not be a reason to hold that the appeal before the lower Court is not maintainable. 7. Per contra, Mr.J.Thilagaraj, the learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned Judgement and Decree of the first appellate court remanding the matter to the Trial Court and submitted that although objections relating to territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction should be taken by the Defendants at the earliest possible opportunity, but however the objections relating to lack of inherent jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and therefore, it could be taken up even at the appellate stage. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2006-1-CTC-178 (The State of Tamil Nadu by the Superintending Engineer, PWD//WRO, Madurai and another Vs. R.Sundaram and another) and also relied on the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2005-5-CTC-133 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited and another) which is extracted as under:- "31.) ... It is well settled and need no authority that 'where a Court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing'. A decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction is non-est and its validity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice." 8. A decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction is non-est and its validity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a coram non judice." 8. Section 21(2) of CPC makes it obligatory and mandatory that objection as to pecuniary jurisdiction should be taken in the court of the first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and they shall not be allowed to be taken in the appellate court. When a case has been tried by a court on merits and judgement rendered, it cannot be reversed purely on the technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. It is no doubt true that it is a fundamental rule that a judgement of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that want of jurisdiction cannot be waived. To this, there are two recognized exceptions as laid down in Section 21 of CPC. Sub section 2 of Section 21 of CPC reads as under:- "(2) No objection as to the competence of a Court with reference to the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice." 9. Section 21(2) of CPC makes it clear that lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction which goes to the root of the jurisdiction. An objection on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be entertained by appellate court and revisional court, even if it was taken at the earliest possible opportunity before the Trial Court as in the absence of failure of justice, lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is a mere irregularity and it does not make a decree nullity. Thus, this provision gives a statutory recognition to the principle that defect as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court may be waived by the Defendant. 10. In the present case, admittedly when the suit was filed, the Sub Court had unlimited jurisdiction and therefore, the Trial Court had proper pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, this provision gives a statutory recognition to the principle that defect as to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court may be waived by the Defendant. 10. In the present case, admittedly when the suit was filed, the Sub Court had unlimited jurisdiction and therefore, the Trial Court had proper pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The judgement of the Trial Court was delivered on 22.4.2004. Even before the delivery of judgement and decree by the Trial Court, Civil Courts Amendment Act 2004 had come into force i.e. from 8.1.2004. After the said amendment had come into force, admittedly, no objection was filed by the Respondents, questioning the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court and no additional issue was framed. Further, in the present case, determination of future mesne profits had been relegated to a separate proceedings and has not been decided in the suit. The finding of the first appellate court that the value of the suit would be Rs.5,05,000/-, if the tentative claim for damages of Rs.5000/- is added is not proper. When the judgement had been rendered on merits by the Trial Court, the said judgement ought not to have been reversed with by the first appellate court, merely on account of objection taken by the Defendant regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court especially when no objection was taken by the Defendant at the earliest possible opportunity. Further, the Respondents are unable to point out anything to show that it has occasioned in any failure of justice to the Defendants. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondents, which is reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2005-5-CTC-133 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited and another) that only inherent lack of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of jurisdiction or competence of a court to try the case, makes a decree passed by the said court which has no competence, a nullity. But, there is a difference between lack of jurisdiction which goes to the root of jurisdiction and lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. An objection regarding lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the court to try a case and therefore, a party would be precluded from raising such objection, when he has not raised the said objection at the earliest possible opportunity. An objection regarding lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the court to try a case and therefore, a party would be precluded from raising such objection, when he has not raised the said objection at the earliest possible opportunity. In the present case, the Respondents have not taken the objection before the Trial Court at the earliest possible opportunity, that is, immediately after the Civil Courts Amendment Act 2004 had come into force. He has also not raised it as a ground in the memorandum of grounds in the appeal filed before the first appellate court also. Only by way of application, they have raised the said issue before the first appellate court. Since the case has been tried on merits and judgement has been delivered by the Trial Court, the same cannot be reversed purely on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, in the absence of any evidence to show that it has resulted in failure of justice. The first appellate court was not justified in remanding the suit to the Trial Court. The lower Appellate Court should have disposed of the case on merits. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgement and Decree of the first appellate court remanding the matter to the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgement and Decree of the first appellate court remanding the matter to the Trial Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law, by giving findings on all points formulated for consideration, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.