MAHARAVAL MOHANSINGJI JEYSINGJI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit brought by the Appellant in the District Court of Surat, claiming, as the adopted son of Maharaval Jeysingji Bhagvansingi, to recover from the Government of Bombay certain payments in respect of a to da garas hukk, formerly levied by his ancestors upon certain villages in the Surat district. It appears that the Government has for many years made payments on account of this to da garas hukk (divided into three parts) to three different branches of the Appellant's family; his adoptive father, through whom he claims, being paid one-third. The father died in 1865, and upon his death the Government either refused to recognise the Plaintiff as the adopted son, or considered that, as an adopted son, he was not entitled to receive the payments, and discontinued them. The action is brought, in consequence of that discontinuance, to recover the arrears from the time of the father's death.

(2.) THE Government denied the right of the Appellant to bring this suit in the Civil Courts, relying upon the Pensions Act of 1871. The Courts below, both the District Judge of Surat and the High Court on appeal, have held that the Government is entitled to rely upon that Act, and that the Civil Courts can take no cognisance of the suit.

(3.) THE nature of to da garas hukk having been adverted to, their Lordships have now to refer to the statute upon which the question, and the only question, in the appeal turns. The 4th section is this : " Except as hereinafter provided, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may be the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim, or right for which such pension or grant may have been substituted." It has been shewn that this hukk, whatever it originally was, had acquired the character of a right, and the plaint bases the claim of the Plaintiff upon its being a right. That being so, it appears to their Lordships that the present suit is one of those which fall directly and plainly within the language of this clause. It is a suit relating to a grant of money conferred by the British Government; and the Civil Courts are prohibited from entertaining any suit relating to such a grant, whatever may have been the consideration for it, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim, or right for which such grant may have been substituted. There is in this case a grant of money by the Government, and a right for which it was substituted. It, therefore, falls within the language of the fourth clause. The right of the Garasias was of a peculiar and precarious kind ; and allowances in respect of rights of this nature are clearly contemplated by the Act, and intended to be included in it. If there were any doubt the previous clause, the third, which is explanatory of the expression "grant of money or land revenue," may be looked at. It is as follows : " In this Act the expression ' grant of money or land revenue' includes anything payable on the part of the Government in respect of any right, privilege, perquisite, or office." Even if the arrangement made by the Government was not strictly a grant, the suit relates to money payable by the Government in respect of a right. It was argued that the construction should be limited to rights ejusdem generis with pensions. But there is no sufficient ground for so limiting the language; and it is to be observed that the words of the Pensions Act of 1871, which include this case, are not found in the former regulations relating to pensions. There is no reason, therefore, either in the language of the Act itself or in the antecedent legislation, for construing these words as applicable only to rights of the nature of pensions.