The amount of privy purse receivable by a Ruler of a former Indian State is a political pension within the meaning of section 60 (1) (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is therefore protected from execution.

BACHAWAT J. - The appellant is the Ruler of the former Indian State of Jaora. He had money dealings with the respondent. By agreement dated February 23, 1957, the appellant and the respondent agreed to refer their dis - putes regarding those dealings to the arbitration of Lala Durgashankar. On the same date, arbitrator made an award. By this award, the arbitrator found that a. sum of Re. 1,60,000 was due to the respondent from the appellant and directed this sum would be payable in eight quarterly instalments, the first four instalments to be of Rs. 21,000 each, and the next four instalments to be of Rs. 19,000 each, the amount of interest would be payable in another quarterly instalment, the respondent would have a first charge on the sum receivable by the appellant from the . Government of India as privy purse, and would be entitled to realise those sums under a letter of authority issued by the appellant, and if the Government would raise any objection to the payment, the respondent would have the right to realise the dues from the personal property of the appellant. Some of the items of the loans introspect of which the a ward was made were secured on lands and ornaments. The award therefore provided :

"The documents relating to debts obtained on lands and ornaments shall remain as before till the payment of the debts and they shall also remain as securitill8till then and the Nawab Saheb shall have no right to transfer the land."

The award was signed by the arbitrator and also by the appellant and the respondent.

2. On the same day, the arbitrator filed the award in the Court of the District Judile, Ratlam. Notice of the filing of the award under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was duly served on the parties. On March 9, 1957, an agent of the appellant filed a written submission accepting the award and requesting the Court to pass a decree in terms of the award. But on the same day, an application was made by another agent of the appellant intimating that steps would be taken for setting aside the award. The Court fixed March 23, 1957 for filling the objection. The time was subsequently extended up to April 2, 1957. On that day, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant praying for setting aside the award. But on April.5, 1957, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant withdrawing the objections and asking the Court to pass a decree in terms of the award, subject to the modification that the amount of the award would be payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 13,006 each. This application was signed by the respondent in token Of his consent to the modification of the amount of the instalments. On April 30, 1957. the arbitrator filed the relevant papers. On the same day, an agent of the appellant filed an application praying for setting aside the compromise and the award. The case was fixed for hearing on June 19, 1957. On that date, the Court received by registered post an application from the appellant withdrawing the objections and praying for an order in accordance with the compromise application filed on April 5, 1957. In the circumstances, on June 19, 1957, the Court recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms of the award as modified by the compromise. The appellant filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court Appeal No. 81 of 1957 under section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order dated June 19, 1957 treating it as an order refusing to set aside the award. The appellant also filed Appeal No. 82 of 1957 under Order 43 (1) (m) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated June 19, 1957 recording the compromise.

3. In the meantime, the respondent started Execution Case No.5 of 1957. and on September 9. 1957 obtained an ex parte order for transfer of the decree to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. On November 1,1957, the Central Government gave a certificate under section 86 (3) read with section 87•B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190