VAIDYANATHA AIYAR Vs. YOGAMBAL AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 9 and 10 defendants are the appellants before us. The suit is for partition between the members of the family. The family had become divided in status long ago. The present suit is for division by metes and bounds. The plaintiff is the widow of one Muthuswami Aiyar who died in 1904 and claims under his will. The appeal relates to the subject-matter of the fourth issue, namely, items, 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 which are unenfranchised hereditary personal inams.

(2.) Two points have been raised for the appellants: (1) That the suit is not maintainable in a Civil Court under Section 4 of the Pensions Act, and (2) that the plaintiff has no right to a share in these items either as heir or as devisee.

(3.) Taking the first point, Section 4 of the Pensions Act enacts that 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. Now, remembering that "an enactment of a character which deprives the subject of his right to resort to the ordinary Civil Courts of Justice for relief in certain cases ought to be construed strictly and the Court should not extend its operation further than the language of the Legislature requires" [vide the cases cited in Balvani Ramchandra V/s. Secretary of State (1905) I.L.R. 39 B 480 at 490] one would think that the proper construction of the section would confine its opera-lion to a grant of land revenue only as opposed to a grant of land. This is the view taken in this Court in Panchanada v. Nilakanda (1883) I.L.R. 7 M 191 where Turner, C.J. says: That Act contemplates money payments to be received through the Collector or recovered from persons bound to pay revenue. and therefore the Act does not cover grants of lands revenue free.