Back
1931 Supreme(SC) 31
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACMILLAN, SIR GEORGE LOWNDES, AND SIR DIN SHAH MULLA.
NAWAB BAHADUR OF MURSHIDABAD - Appellant
Versus
KARNANI INDUSTRIAL BANK INDUSTRIAL LIMITED - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : March 16. 1931.
Solicitor for appellant: H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitors for respondents: Oswald Hickson, Collier & Co.
Rents from inalienable properties are attachable if the holder has a disposing power over the income. Such rents do not constitute a "pension" (exempt from attachment) unless they are periodical payments made directly by the Government to the pensioner.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 51 and 60(1) - Execution of decree - Appointment of receiver - Attachment of rents - Inalienable properties - Where a statute renders immovable properties inalienable but imposes no restriction on the enjoyment of rents, the judgment-debtor possesses a disposing power over such income for his own benefit - Appointment of a receiver for the rents of such properties to satisfy a money decree is competent and does not contravene the purpose of the settlement or public policy, provided the income is not restricted from being used by the holder.
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 60(1)(g) - Pensions Act, 1871 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 6 - Definition of "pension" - The term "pension" implies periodical payments of money by the Government to the pensioner - Rents derived from properties held by a person, even if intended for the maintenance of a specific rank or dignity, do not constitute a political pension and are therefore not exempt from attachment.
Facts of the case:
A decree-holder applied for the appointment of a receiver for the rents, issues, and profits of certain immovable properties held by the judgment-debtor under a settlement confirmed by statute. The properties were rendered inalienable by the settlement, and the income was intended for the maintenance of the holder's rank and dignity. The lower court initially dismissed the application, but the appellate court appointed a receiver to satisfy money decrees obtained against the judgment-debtor.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the properties themselves were inalienable, the rents were not. The holder had the power to dispose of the income as he pleased unless the government exercised its special power to intervene. Furthermore, these rents did not qualify as a "pension" because they were derived from property ownership rather than direct government payments.
Issues: Whether the appointment of a receiver for rents of inalienable properties intended for the maintenance of a title's dignity is legally permissible and whether such rents are exempt from attachment as political pensions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a disposing power over income exists if there is no statutory restraint on its enjoyment, making it liable to attachment under Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Additionally, "pension" refers specifically to periodical payments made by the Government; income from property, regardless of its intended purpose, does not fall under this exemption.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
execution of decrees
- appointment of receiver
- attachment of property
-
execution of decrees
-
property law
- inalienability
-
administrative law
- pensions
Judgement
Appeal (No. 54 of 1930) from an order of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (July 15, 1929)
Law Rep. 58 Ind. App. 215 ( 1930- 1931) Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad v. Karnani Industrial
73
reversing an order of Lort-Williams J.
The appellant as Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad had succeeded to the benefit of a settlement of immovable properties contained in an indenture of 1891, which was confirmed by Act XV. of 1891, to which it is scheduled. The respondent bank, in execution of money decrees which it had obtained against the appellant, applied to the High Court to appoint a receiver of the rents, issues and profits of properties included in the settlement.
Lort-Williams J. dismissed the application, but upon appeal a receiver was appointed by Rankin C.J. and C. C. Ghose J.
The material terms of the indenture appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1931. Feb. 13. Dunne K.C. and Dube for the appellant. E. B. Raikes K.C, and M. R. Jardine for the respondents.
March 16. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD MACMILLAN. By an order dated July 15, 1929, the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, allowing an appeal from an order of Lort-Williams J., appointed a receiver of the rents, issues and profits of certain properties in Calcutta in execution of several decrees obtained against the present appellant by the respondent bank. The sole question is whether it was competent to make this appointment in view of the terms of the Moorshedabad Act (XV. of 1891), which has reference to these properties.
The purpose of that Act was to confirm and give effect to an indenture between the Secretary of State and the then Nawab Bahadoor of Moorshedabad, dated March 12, 1891. The indenture, which is duly confirmed by the Act and scheduled thereto, narrates at great length the circumstances which led up to it. It appears that the then Nawab Bahadoor, the appellants predecessor, who was the eldest son of the late Nawab Nazim of Bengal, Behar and Orissa, had agreed to relinquish the latter title with its appurtenant rights in consideration of his receiving the titles of Nawab Bahadoor of Moorshedabad and Amir-ul-Omrah, carrying with them the precedence, rank, dignity and privileges of the premier noble of Bengal, Behar and Orissa and also in consideration of provision being made for the maintenance and support of the older of these titles for the time being and for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of his station.
On these and other recitals the Secretary of State covenanted " for the due maintenance and support of the said titles of Nawab Bahadoor of Moorshedabad and Amir-ul-Omrah and the position and station thereto attaching and of the honour and dignity thereof " to pay to the Nawab Bahadoor and his lineal heirs male in perpetuity an annual sum of Rs.2,30,000 by monthly instalments of Rs. 19,166-10-8, and further agreed and declared that the immovable properties mentioned in the schedules to the indenture (which include the properties of the rents of which the High Court has] appointed a receiver) should " henceforth and forever be held and enjoyed by the said Nawab Bahadoor and such one among his lineal heirs male as may be successively entitled to hold the said titles in perpetuity with and subject to the incidents, powers, limitations and conditions as to inalienability and otherwise " thereafter in the indenture contained.
The first of these conditions is in the following terms " First. The said Nawab Bahadoor shall not nor shall any of his successors in the said titles sell, mortgage, devise or alienate the said properties respectively or any of them otherwise than by lease or demise for a term not exceeding 21 years and
Law Rep. 58 Ind. App. 215 ( 1930- 1931) Nawab Bahadur of Murshidabad v. Karnani Industrial
74
under a rent without bonus or salamee."
The indenture also provided as follows " In case the said Nawab Bahadoor or any of his lineal heirs male successors to the title
