RAFIUDDIN Vs. MOHD AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I agree with the conclusions recorded by my learned brother, Desai J. and also with the order proposed by him. I would however, like to express my own views about the maintainability of the claim relating to the 'muafi', which has also been described as 'assignment of land revenue' and which is the 'grant' of land revenue, within the meaning of the term used in Section 4, Pensions Act (NO. XXIII [23] of 1871).

(2.) THE plaintiffs' suit, which has given rise to this appeal, related to specified shares in three items of property; viz., (1) a house in the city of Budaun; (2) the 'muafi'; and (3) the sir land. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge of Budaun; and the Court was competent and had jurisdiction to try the same. In view of the provisions contained in Section 4, Pensions Act, however, the Court could not entertain the suit, so far as it related to the 'muafi', unless the procedure prescribed in Sections 5 and 6 of the Act had been followed; that is to say, the claim had been first preferred to the collector of the district, in which the property was situate, and the Collector had issued the certificate referred to in Section 6 of the Act. As the suit related to other property as well, the Court could not and did not refuse to entertain the same. After the suit had been instituted the claim relating to the 'muafi' seems to have been preferred to the Collector, as he issued the necessary certificate, which was produced before the Court, while the suit was still pending. Thus the claim in respect of the 'muafi' became cognizable by the Court, under s. 6 of the Act, which is in these terms;

(3.) SECTION 4 of the Act, no doubt, lays down that