As per case facts, the appellant entered into a plot buyer agreement with DLF Universal Limited for a residential plot in Gurgaon, Haryana. Despite making payments, the respondent unilaterally cancelled ... the agreement. The appellant filed a suit in Delhi High Court for specific performance, possession, and declaration. Initially, the defendants admitted Delhi Court's jurisdiction. However, over eight years later, they moved to amend their written statement, objecting to jurisdiction, arguing the property was in Gurgaon and thus Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied. The trial court allowed the amendment, ruled Delhi Court lacked jurisdiction, and ordered the plaint returned, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The question arose whether the Delhi Court had jurisdiction to try a suit for specific performance and possession of immovable property located outside its territorial limits, especially when parties had initially admitted jurisdiction and agreed to it via an agreement clause. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. It clarified that a court without inherent territorial jurisdiction over immovable property cannot entertain such a suit, as per Section 16 of the Code. The proviso to Section 16, concerning personal obedience of the defendant, was found inapplicable as the primary relief sought was regarding the property itself. The Court emphasized that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court by consent if it inherently lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, and any such agreement would be void against public policy. An objection regarding jurisdiction over the subject matter, unlike territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, can be raised at any stage, and a decree passed by a court without such jurisdiction is a nullity. Therefore, the Delhi Court rightly held it lacked jurisdiction.