C GOPALACHARIAR Vs. DEEPCHAND SOWCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these connected Civil Revision Petitions from the orders of the District Judge of Chingleput in appeals which were heard together, only one point arises for determination, namely, whether the commuted portion of the pension due to the petitioner by the Government is liable to attachment at the instance of creditors of his in view of Section 11 of the Pensions Act (XXIII of 1871). The petitioner is a retired postal official, and a portion of his pension was commuted sometime in March, 1939, or thereabouts and the commuted portion of the pension amounted to Rs. 3,500 and odd, and a payment order for this amount was forwarded to the postmaster, Conjeevaram, for delivery to the petitioner. As the learned District Judge observes, the only act remaining to be done by the petitioner is to take delivery of the payment order and to cash it at the local treasury. Before he could do so attachments were made at the instance of certain money-lenders. On objection by the petitioner that the attachments were illegal in view of the provision of S11 of the Pensions Act, the Courts below have held that his contention is not well founded and have confirmed the attachments.

(2.) There is no doubt that in view of the Bench decision in The Municipal Council Salem V/s. Gururaja Rao (1934) 68 M.L.J. 118 : 58 Mad. 469, when a pension is commuted or a portion thereof, it ceases to be pension and becomes a capital sum. This decision is binding on me and I have to proceed on the basis that the commuted portion of the pension cannot be treated as pension after the commutation. It has been brought to my notice that a certain passage which was quoted and relied upon in Municipal Council, Salem V/s. Gururaja Rao1 from Crowe V/s. Price (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 429 is to be found no doubt in the Law Journal Reports Crowe V/s. Price (1889) 58 L.J.R. Q.B.D. 215 but is not to be found in the report of the same case in Crowe V/s. Price (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 429. It would seem indeed that the latter report gives a revised version of the judgment of Lord Coleridge, C.J. Nothing, however, turns on this, because apart from this passage which is relied on in The Municipal Council Salem V/s. Gururaja Rao (1934) 68 M.L.J. 118 : 58 Mad. 469, the Bench has clearly Laid down that after commutation the portion of the pension that was commuted ceases to he pension.

(3.) The point for determination is however not concluded by the decision in The Municipal Council Salem V/s. Gururaja Rao (1934) 68 M.L.J. 118 : 58 Mad. 469 , for, that was a case in which the question was whether the commuted portion of the pension was income for the purpose of assessing profession-tax in a municipality. In the present cases it was urged in the Courts below, and the same contention is repeated in this Court, that the commuted portion of the pension is not attachable by reason of the provisions of Section 11 of the Pensions Act which runs as follows: No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance, shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court in British India, at the instance of a creditor, for any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.